Up With Beauty!

Steven Malcolm Anderson's characters, spectrums, and screeds


Tue, 01 Mar 2005
An overview of this whole shebang of spectrums so far

(You can see another overview of ideological spectra in this article on Political Spectrum in the Wikipedia.)

In my first post in this series on spectrumology, I described a spectrum like this:

Total Gov't_______________Limited Gov't______No Gov't

Or:

Communist___________________________________Anarchist

In my second post within this series, I showed you a quiz from 1972 that showed a spectrum like this:

Radical__Liberal__Moderate__Conservative__Reactionary

Or:

Communist_____________________________________Fascist

And then in my third post, on the MAD spectrum, I described a spectrum like this:

New Left__Left__Liberal__Conservative__Reactionary__Far Right

Or:

Hippie_________________________________________Square

Or:

Anarchist_____________________________________Fascist

My fourth post showed a spectrum like this:

Radical__Liberal__Moderate__Conservative__Reactionary

Or:

Anarchist (Social)_____________Anarchist (Individual)

Left and Right were defined thusly:

Human Rights__________________________Property Rights
Rationalism_____________________________Irrationalism
Egalitarianism________________________________Elitism
Personal Liberty_____________________Authoritarianism
Internationalism__________________________Nationalism

In sum:

Communist___________________________________Anarchist
Communist_____________________________________Fascist
Anarchist_____________________________________Fascist
Anarchist___________________________________Anarchist

Then, I reviewed all the spectrums I had described up to that point, culminating in this dualism of spectrums (adumbrating the Smith-Anderson spectrum):

"One, One World, One Everything"________Opposing "One, One World, One Everything"

"Anything Goes"__________________________________"One Way, Only One Way"

My fifth post was a review of a number of extremely interesting and profound books seeking to define the essential opposition between Left and Right in the modern West. The first book I reviewed was George Lakoff's Moral Politics, in which he saw the opposition as stemming from opposing conceptions of the ideal parent:

Nurturing Parent________________________Strict Father

Which ties in with the polarity outlined by Michael Barone in his Hard America, Soft America:

Soft (Non-Competitive)_____________Hard (Competitive)

All of which ties in with the polarity outlined by Thomas Sowell in his A Conflict of Visions:

Unconstrained_____________________________Constrained

Which essentially means, in epistemology and in your view of human nature:

Rationalist________________________________Empiricist
Optimist____________________________________Pessimist
Total or No Gov't_______________________Limited Gov't

Which led me to Brad Miner's dualisms, which he described in his Concise Conservative Encyclopedia:

Secularist_____________________________________Theist
Relativist____________________________________Realist
Progressivist_________________________________Skeptic
Constructivist___________________________Evolutionist
Statist____________________________________Federalist
Collectivist_______________________________Capitalist

Then, I alluded to the polarity described by Silvan Tomkins and discussed extensively by Charles Hampden-Turner in his Radical Man and Maps of the Mind, based on this philosophical question:

"Is Man the measure, an end in himself, an active, creative, thinking, loving, desiring force in nature [Left]? Or must Man realize himself, attain his full stature, only through struggle toward, participation in, conformity to a norm, a measure, an ideal essence, basically independent of Man [Right]?"

Humanist____________________________________Normative

Then, I made reference to Norberto Bobbio's Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, in which he discussed a number of proposed definitions. Among these was Dino Cofrancesco's:

Liberation__________________________________Tradition

Cofrancesco saw a more salient polarity or dimension of ideological orientations, which he termed Classic or Realist and Romantic or Spiritualist. The Classic ideologies he listed as:

Scientific Socialist_______Liberal_______Conservative

The Romantic ideologies he listed as:

Anarcho-Libertarian_________Traditionalist____Fascist

This looks like a 2-dimensional spectrum already. Bobbio concluded that it ultimately comes down to:

Equality___________________________________Inequality

In sum:

Nurturing______________________________________Strict
Soft_____________________________________________Hard
Unconstrained_____________________________Constrained
Humanist____________________________________Normative
Liberation__________________________________Tradition
Equality___________________________________Inequality

All of which led up to J. A. Laponce's Left and Right: The Topography of Political Perceptions, in which he gave an extensive cross-cultural mythological and historical overview of the meanings, associations, and symbolisms of Left and Right since prehistory, and then in the West since the French Revolution. He concluded that it ultimately comes down to these:

Horizontality_____________________________Verticality
Secular________________________________________Sacred
Equality____________________________________Hierarchy
Discontinuity______________________________Continuity

I concluded that post with some thoughts on the 2 opposing slogans of the Left vs. the Right during and after the French Revolution:

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity________Throne and Altar

In my sixth post, I began to look at a number of 2-dimensional spectra, beginning with variations on the Nolan spectrum. The dimensions of the Nolan spectrum are:

Socialism_______________Capitalism (Economic Freedom)

and also:

Personal Freedom_______________Law and Order/Morality

"Law and order" or "morality" here means censorship, drug laws, the military draft, etc.. Make a cross (+) or an X with those two axes and you have the Nolan spectrum. Dr. Kelley Ross added another dimension, that of forms of government:

Anarchy___Democracy___Republic___Oligarchy___Monarchy

He also analyzed the 4 quadrants of the Nolan spectrum philosophically and psychologically, using the Myers-Briggs typology. He described the Conservative as Epimethean, the Authoritarian as Apollonian, the Liberal as Dionysian, the Libertarian as Promethean. He is an extremely profound philosopher. The Political Compass is a very similar spectrum, as is the 3-dimensional Vosem Chart, which splits the economic dimension into 2 dimensions, pro-business vs. anti-business and pro-government vs. anti-government. Another variant on the Nolan spectrum showed divergences from libertarianism extending in two directions, toward rule by the majority or toward rule by a minority. Another spectrum had these two dimensions:

Moral Liberal______________________Moral Conservative

and:

Economic Liberal________________Economic Conservative

On to the seventh spectrum post, the Seventh Heaven, in which I discussed or alluded to some 18 or so different 2-dimensional spectra. I started with a reference to George Hammond's spectrum, based on the symbolism of the Cross, which does indeed set the pattern for every one of these 2-dimensional spectrae. He tied in Christian theology with our American form of government and with Freudian psychology. Then, I discussed the OICU2/AFC spectrum, which has these 2 dimensions:

Socialist___________________________________Anarchist

and:

Liberal__________________________________Conservative

Liberal means secular and permissive. Conservative means religious and self-disciplined. Thus, on this spectrum, you have Liberal Socialists, Conservative Socialists, Liberal Anarchists, Conservative Anarchists.

Then, I rather extensively discussed Jerry Pournelle's spectrum, which has these 2 dimensions:

Anarchist_____________________________________Statist

and:

Rationalist_____________________________Irrationalist

Then, I looked at a spectrum my brother once threw out at me that had 2 dimensions of:

Regimentation_________________________________Freedom

and:

Optimist____________________________________Pessimist

and Jeanine Ring's spectrum, which has these 2 dimensions:

Naturalist___________________________________Moralist

and:

Egalitarian______________________________Hierarchical

On the naturalist or Pagan side are the democratic Dionysians or Old Low Culture, and the aristocratic Apollonians or Old High Culture. On the moralist or Christian side are the Converted Low Culture from the first Christians to the modern socialist Left, and the Calvinistic Converted High Culture. This ties in with many spectra.

My friend Robin Georg Olsen created a spectrum with these 2 dimensions:

Modernist______________________________Traditionalist

and:

Populist______________________________________Elitist

He also thought of a 4-fold typology of the Godhead (God the Father, God the Son [the Christ], God the Daughter [the Holy Spirit], the Mother of God [the Queen of Heaven]) which I increasingly think about in terms of my characters. Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma worship these Deities. Wicked Wanda is an atheist. I will discuss my characters and their spectrums in future posts here in Up With Beauty.

I then mentioned a symposium on spectrumology in the September 1976 Commentary, and one of the authors, Paul H. Weaver, who had a triangular spectrum of Left (Egalitarian), Liberal (Libertarian), and Right (Authoritarian), and another spectrum of:

Radical (Dogmatic)___________Conservative (Pragmatic)

He concluded that the contemporary American Left combines conservative variants of Left, Liberal, and Right tendencies, while the contemporary American Right combines radical variants of Liberal and Right elements. Which means that it is now reversed:

Pragmatic Left/Liberal/Right___Dogmatic Liberal/Right

A. Lawrence Chickering, in his Beyond Left and Right, had 2 dimensions:

Left____________________________________________Right

and:

Freedom_________________________________________Order

Thus: Order Left, Freedom Right, Freedom Left, Order Right. I'm thinking of posting a series of essays that I wrote a few years back tying this in with a number of other 2-dimensional spectrums. Chickering also discussed this polarity:

Marginal_________________________________________Core

"Marginal" means exotic or esoteric. "Core" means traditional.

Howard Katz showed a spectrum very similar to this, illustrating his theory of how liberalism came to be so divided in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Samuel Brittan, in his Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma, proposed a 3-dimensional spectrum using these dimensions:

Liberal_________________________________Authoritarian

and:

Egalitarian___________________________________Elitist

and:

Radical______________________________________Orthodox

Back in the 1950s, Hans J. Eysenck, in his The Psychology of Politics, created a spectrum with these 2 dimensions:

Radical__________________________________Conservative

and

Tough-Minded____________________________Tender-Minded

I then discussed at some length the 4-fold typology outlined by William Irwin Thompson in his At the Edge of History, based on the primal prehistoric personae of Hunter, Headman, Shaman, Clown, which he then extrapolated into their ancient, modern, and future manifestations, and also tied in with Reactionary, Conservative, Liberal, Radical. As I noted, his typology reminds me very much of the typology which my friend Robin Georg Olsen and I have often discussed: Warrior, King, Magician, Lover.

Andrew Greely created a spectrum with these 2 dimensions:

No Original Sin__________________________Original Sin

and:

Industrial___________________________________Agrarian

From this, his 4 ideological types were: Socialist, Capitalist, Anarchist, Catholic.

I also discussed some associations which I saw coming together into a triangular spectrum: Communist-Environmentalist-Realist-Naturalist vs. Fascist-Hereditarian-Classicist-Jehovanist vs. Anarchist-Volitionist-Romanticist-Gnostic. This reminded me of a 4-fold spectrum I had read of somewhere with these associations: Radical-Mechanist-Tragic, Liberal-Contextualist-Satiric, Conservative-Organicist-Comic, Anarchist-Formalist-Romantic. I will discuss this further in that series I hope to post in the near future.

In my eighth post within this spectrumological series, I then went into great depth about the spectrum I developed with my friend David Lynn Smith. I took note of the dualistic style of Right-Wing writing:

Ayn Rand:

Man's Dependence on Man_________Man's Independent Ego

also:

Plato, Kant______________________Aristotle, Nietzsche
Tolstoy_____________________________Dostoyevsky, Hugo
Woodstock___________________________________Apollo 11

Richard Nixon:

Atheism___________________________________________God
Slavery_______________________________________Freedom
Collectivism____________________________Individuality

William F. Buckley:

Atheism__________________________________Christianity
Collectivism____________________________Individualism

Robert Welch:

Communism________________Christian-Style Civilization

Phyllis Schlafly:

Communists__________________________________Americans
Criminals____________________________________Citizens
Lawless________________________________________Lawful
Pornography___________________________________Decency
Atheism___________________________________________God

Don Juan Donoso Cortes:

Evil, Sin________________________________________Good
Disorder________________________________________Order
Disobedience________________________________Obedience
Rebellion__________________________________Submission

also:

Atheistic____________________________________Catholic
Democratic, Socialistic___________________Monarchical

Lyndon LaRouche:

Aristotle_______________________________________Plato
Relativism__________________________________Absolutes
Monteverdi____________________________________Zarlino
Ken Kesey________________________________________Bach
The Beatles_________________________________Beethoven
Aldous Huxley_____________________________Shakespeare
Newton________________________________________Leibniz

It basically came down to these 2 dimensions:

Blurring____________Sharpening/Glorifying Differences

and:

Legalizing/Glorifying the Different_______Prohibiting

In other words:

"One, One World, One Everything"________Opposing "One, One World, One Everything"

and:

"Anything Goes"__________________________________"One Way, Only One Way"

The 4 quadrants of this spectrum we labeled "Commie Land", "Hippie Land", "The Land of Law and Order", "The Land of Ayn Rand".

In #69, Stephanie Estelle Xayananh alluded to some spectra of sexual orientations:

Heterosexual_______________________________Homosexual

Androsexual________________________________Gynosexual

Promiscuous________________________________Monogamous

Sadist______________________________________Masochist

and then discussed Murray S. Davis's triangular spectrum as he described it in his seminal Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology. The three ideologies are:

Naturalist_________________________________Jehovanist

Naturalist____________________________________Gnostic

Gnostic____________________________________Jehovanist

A triangle. I described these 3 this way:

"If sex is nothing but a joke, as the liberal "Naturalists" think, then laws against it are nothing but a joke and can be laughed off and ignored. But if sex is a sin against God and a crime against society, as "Jehovanists" believe, then laws against it must be enforced to placate God and preserve society. And if sex is a holy manifestation of the Godlike/Goddesslike self, as this "Gnostic" dogmatically believes, then laws against it are an unholy abomination and must be abolished."

In this post here and here and here, I discussed a spectrum, based on a profound observation by Ayn Rand, that I had been thinking about for a couple years, with these 2 dimensions:

Collectivist____________________________Individualist

and:

Materialist______________________________Spiritualist

Along the 4 sides of the square I posited these ideologies:

the Collectivists:

Economic Equality____Total Control___Moral Censorship

the Materialists:

Socialist__________Pragmatist______________Capitalist

the Spiritualists:

Moral Majority__Conservative__Spiritual Individualist

the Individualists:

Economic Liberty__Integrated__Spiritual Individualist

I here contrasted the Ayn Rand of The Fountainhead (closer to the Spiritual pole) with the Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged (closer to the Economic pole).

In post 11 square 11, I discussed a whole bunch of fascinating dualities and polarities besed on the polarity of the Left Hemisphere and the Right Hemisphere of your brain. In The Personality Compass, these two hemispheres are described thusly:

Language_______________________________________Rhythm
Logic___________________________________________Music
Number_________________________________________Images
Sequence__________________________________Imagination
Linearity_________________________________Daydreaming
Analysis________________________________________Color
Calculation_________________________________Dimension

In The Book, Alan Watts described this dualism:

Prickle___________________________________________Goo
Tough-Minded____________________________Tender-Minded
Rigorous, Precise____________________________Romantic
Differences, Divisions________________Grand Syntheses
Discontinuities__________________________Continuities
Particles_______________________________________Waves

In The Alphabet vs. the Goddess, Leonard Shlain outlined this dualism:

Alphabet______________________________________Goddess
Male___________________________________________Female
Linear Abstraction_____________Holistic Visualization
Word____________________________________________Image
Cuneiform______________________________________Marduk
Hieroglyph_______________________________________Isis
Moses_________________________________________Abraham
Adam______________________________________________Eve
Ganymede_______________________________________Sappho
Apollo_______________________________________Dionysus
Lingam___________________________________________Yoni
Yang______________________________________________Yin
Confucianist___________________________________Taoist
A.D._____________________________________________B.C.
Patriarch_____________________________________Heretic
Celibacy___________________________________Illiteracy
Protestant___________________________________Catholic
Superego___________________________________________Id

Robert Anton Wilson wrote of these dualisms:

Abel_____________________________________________Cain
Archangel Michael___________________Archangel Lucifer
Wellington___________________________________Napoleon
Bacon_____________________________________Shakespeare
Gladstone_____________________________________Parnell
English_________________________________________Irish
White Race____________________________Non-White Races
Rational____________________________________Intuitive
Political____________________________________Artistic

Rationality_____________________________Irrationality
Science_____________________________________Mysticism
Law'n'Order___________________________________Anarchy
Total Control________________________Total Liberation

Norman Mailer wrote of a dualism related to these:

Classicism________________________________Romanticism
Square____________________________________________Hip
Orderly___________________________________Spontaneous
Logic________________________________________Instinct
Authoritarian______________________________Nihilistic
White___________________________________________Negro
Cops___________________________________________Crooks
Sartre______________________________________Heidegger
Religion__________________________________________Sex
Mind_____________________________________________Body
Analytic Geometry_______________Differential Calculus
Marx as Sociologist_____________ Marx as Psychologist
Lenin_________________________________________Trotsky
Tolstoy___________________________________Dostoyevsky
Aldous Huxley__________________________D. H. Lawrence
Atlee_______________________________________Churchill
Socialists_________________________________Anarchists
Mondrian______________________________________Picasso
To Seduce by Reasoned Argument_____To Seduce by Touch
Past and/or Planned Future____________________Present
Apollo_______________________________________Dionysus
Wyndham Lewis_____________________________James Joyce

A great dualism arose on the Starboard side of the Smith-Anderson spectrum between Wyndham Lewis vs. D. H. Lawrence, Henri Bergson, Oswald Spengler, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Lewis on the left vs. Bergson on the right here:

Objective__________________________________Subjective
Logical_____________________________________Intuitive
Geometrical___________________________________Organic
Fixity of Space__________________________Flow of Time

Lewis vs. Spengler:

Masculine____________________________________Feminine
Space____________________________________________Time
Nature________________________________________History
Causality_____________________________________Destiny

Lewis vs. Lawrence:

The Rational Intellect____The Dark Wisdom of the Blood

And Lawrence's Aztec myths and Nietszche's Goddess of the Ring of Eternity.... Lewis vs. Lawrence, Bergson, Spengler, Nietzsche on all of these:

Classicism________________________________Romanticism
Precision, Form, Definition________Mysterious, Stormy
Plastic_______________________________________Musical
Newton_______________________________________Einstein
Euclidean Space__________________________Curved Space

Oswald Spengler's monumental The Decline of the West is festooned with such stylized dualisms:

Parmenides______________________________________Plato
Descartes___________________________________Rembrandt
Kant___________________________________________Goethe
Newton______________________________________Beethoven

Nature as Thing-Become______History as Thing-Becoming
Law______________________________________________Form
Space____________________________________________Time
Causality-Principle______________________Destiny-Idea
Mathematical Number______________Chronological Number

Aristotle_______________________________________Homer
Kant____________________________________________Eddas
Sophists____________________________________Doric Man
Darwinians_________________________________Gothic Man

World____________________________________________Soul
Actuality____________Potentiality, Fulfillment (Life)
The Become___________________________________Becoming
Extension___________________________________Direction
Mechanical____________________________________Organic
Number_________________________________________Symbol
Notion_______________________________________Portrait

Nature________________________________________History
Tension________________________________________Rhythm
Law______________________________________________Form
Systematic_______________________________Physiognomic
Truths__________________________________________Facts

Tomislav Sunic, in his Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, quoted a statement condemining totalitarianism, egalitarianism, determinism, universalism, and monotheism, and extolling polytheism and the thought of Oswald Spengler, Friedrich Nietzsche, Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and a number of others, and drew the following dualism:

Spirit___________________________________________Soul
Intellect____________________________________Feelings
Reason______________________________________Character

Which reminded me of the dualism drawn by Whittaker Chambers in his Witness:

Man_______________________________________________God
Mind_____________________________________________Soul
Communism_____________________________________Freedom

From all this, I decided to add another dimension to the Smith-Anderson spectrum, thus making it a 3-dimensional spectrum:

Legalizing/Glorifying the Different_______Prohibiting
"Anything Goes"__________________________________"One Way, Only One Way"

and:

Blurring____________Sharpening/Glorifying Differences
"One, One World, One Everything"________Opposing "One, One World, One Everything"

and:

Glorifying the Logical__________Glorifying the Mythic
Left (Rational) Hemisphere______________Right (Irrational) Hemisphere

I also decided that the dimension of legalizing/glorifying the different corresponds to Sexiness, that the dimension of glorifying differences corresponds to Selfishness, and that the dimension of glorifying the mythic corresponds to Polytheistic Godliness.

I then wrote yet another post relating to all this. I thought about the controversy between Whittaker Chambers vs. Ayn Rand, and about how E. Merrill Root synthesized the two. Which reminded me of the Catholic Thomas Molnar and the Polytheist Alain de Benoist joining forces to write The Eclipse of the Sacred. I thought again of some of those dualistic quotes which illustrated the style of the Right. I thought about how a number of those quotes illustrated another aspect of the style of the Right which has always attracted me. I got together a number of other very similar Starboard quotes which expressed the same essential thoughts and values in different ways. They came down to a polarity of dualisms of this character:

Atheistic Chaos__________________________Divine Order
Collectivist Conformity____________Individual Freedom

Which, in turn, suggested to me a fundamental polarity and tension within the Right:

Individual Freedom_______________________Divine Order

(Which 2 poles could also be 2 dimensions of a spectrum.) As Frank S. Meyer observed in his In Defense of Freedom, this tension between these two values, each of which actually presupposes the other, has been a leitmotif within our Western high culture. And, again, ties in with my holy trinity of supreme values: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness. Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology. The Ego striving for the Infinite.

The style of it all! I shall continue to write more on spectrums. I want to post a series of essays I wrote a few years ago on the tie-ins between various 2-dimensional spectra. I'm thinking of some more color wheels I want to throw at you. I'm also thinking of writing a glossary of some of the idiosyncratic terms I use in this blog. I'm also thinking of a couple quizzes I wrote for the original 2-dimensional Smith-Anderson spectrum. I need to revise my blogroll. And I want to start writing about my characters and their spectrums. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Thu, 24 Feb 2005
Another big THANK YOU! to Dean Esmay

Another big THANK YOU! to Dean Esmay. THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!! READ HIS BLOG.

I admire Dean
For marrying the Queen.

I admire the Queen
For marrying Dean.

[/Prime] permanent link

Wed, 23 Feb 2005
Some more thoughts on the style of the Right

Before I begin this post -- EXTREME ERROR!: In my centennary tribute to Ayn Rand, I quoted Henry Cameron, not Paul Cameron, who is merely another Toohey. Anyway....

Here is another Left-to-Right spectrum used by a Conservative. Basically, the Far Left is Communism, a militantly secular, leveling, revolutionary ideology, while on the Far Right is Conservatism, a religious, aristocratic, traditional social order, steeped in the wisdom of the ages and a deep sense of honor. The style of this spectrum! He wrote a novel, The Return of the Gods. The style of that story was extremely interesting. A gentleman from Virginia rises to the Senate by articulating a controversial Conservative ideology amidst moral, social, and economic collapse. He has many enemies on the Left. Reminds me of Transcendental Scientists vs. Femocrats once again. Like Ayn Rand, this author has a high view of sex. The view of sex, and of life, permeating the novel is deeply Pagan in the original sense of that word. I hope to write some more about that some time in the future. We've got to get back to the glories of our forgotten past. We must Return to the Gods.

I'm now going to throw at you a bunch more quotes from various Conservatives, quotes which illustrate what I think of as a certain essential element, or combination of elements, of the style of the Right. I will begin with a quote I already showed you which illustrated another element of that style:

"I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
-William F. Buckley, God and Man at Yale

Here is another, very similar quote:

"An atheist can align himself with Rightists, echoing their protests against statism, professing love for freedom and individualism. But he does not, in truth, become a Rightist, for he reserves no place in his inner being to nurture the Christian concepts which are inseparable from the libertarian philosophy."
-Verne Paul Kaub, Can an Atheist Be a Rightist?

The style of that. In his The Revolt on the Campus, M. Stanton Evans, discussing the rebellion of young Conservatives against the Liberal Establishment in the early 1960s, at one point listed a number of the eloquent statements that many of these perspicacious young men and women gave of their basic beliefs:

"Men cannot successfully follow the pragmatic practice of basing their policies on what seems to be expedient at the time; they must realize that there is a universal order of things, a moral law which cannot be flouted."
-Anne Husted, DePauw University

"I believe in original sin, and hold that man is both good and evil; that he cannot rely on reason alone, but must also rely on the wisdom of his ancestors, i.e., tradition. I believe in mixed government, as outlined in the Federal Constitution, which was the Burkean type of conservatism championed by John Adams and Madison.
"I regard economics as a science or means, rather than a religion or philosophy. I favor the free enterprise system, but not with the doctrinaire fervor of a libertarian."
-C. Robert Ritchie, Associate Editor The New Guard

"I believe that man's ultimate destiny of union with God in the Beatific Vision is his most important consideration. Therefore any philosophy, to be tenable and true, must take into consideration what man is and what his destiny is. I find that politically, conservatism, with its emphasis on the individual exercising his freedom while respecting the rights and freedom of his fellow men, is the only position which I can hold and still be faithful to my basic premises, philosophically and theologically."
-Carol Ann Nevin, University of Maryland

"I consider myself a conservative; one who accepts natural law and the lessons of history as the guides to judgment in matters political, social, philosophical, and religious. To me, history and the natural law reveal that the family must be the cornerstone of society, and that the protection of individual and family rights is the principal duty of the state. Applying this philosophy to our modern age, I resist the intrusion of the state into areas which are properly the concern of the individual, alone or in voluntary cooperation with other persons, and I affirm that the government of the United States should apply itself instead to its legitimate concern -- the protection of the just interests of our country and its citizens, and defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
-David Franke, Young Americans for Freedom

"Human nature requires political authority. But this authority has limitations based upon a Divine transcendence. The state is not absolute -- it is not a be-all and end-all. Moreover, the political authority must be developed in accordance with man's nature; it cannot properly function as a medium for effecting wild-eyed programs that someone considers 'ideal'....It is the tragedy of our times that today's political and social institutions are dominated by positivism, relativism, and historicism."
-William R. Mapother, University of Virginia

"Stable value, "the good", is more important than freedom, for it is the only thing (the only lasting thing) that makes freedom possible. Once "the good" has been established (embodied in a customary law and community tradition), as it has to the highest degree in the Western tradition, man's primary concern is freedom, first for its own sake and incidentally but powerfully for its explosively productive results (in all areas: economics, art, and science). The present erosion of Western traditional values hence deserves more than the present concern from conservatives, since any victory over the mechanics of collectivist government will be hollow and the result unstable if the essence of the West is not re-established."
-Jameson G. Campaigne, Jr., Williams College

"My first faith is in a higher order of things which I believe in the end must govern all human action. As imperfect persons, our moral obligation is to act in accordance with that higher order, and not to attempt to supplant it with an order of our own, which, being human, will by nature be imperfect and bad. Extending this philosophy, my second faith is in the ability of the individual to interpret the higher order and to act roughly in accordance with it and thus solve his own problems; that no individual is innately qualified to rule over other men."
-John W. Kolbe, Northwestern

"The only basis of respect for the integrity of the individuality of the person and for the overriding value of his freedom is a belief in an organic moral order. Man's pursuit of virtue and the fulfillment of his duty to the moral order can be realized only in a political and economic condition of freedom. In the moral realm freedom is only a means whereby man can properly pursue his end which is virtue, and in the political realm freedom is the primary end."
-Douglas C. Williams, Jr., Earlham College

"My idea of conservatism arises from a belief in an absolute moral law which cannot be tested by scientific and epistemological questions. This law is a natural law of order given by God, and only to be recognized by man. Upon this law should the political order be founded. As far as we have discovered, this order is one in which government should only maintain a social and political condition, i.e., external defense, internal order, and a homogeneous system of justice, in which individuals may live their lives based on their own thinking and deciding -- the freedom required for morality. Consequently, the criterion by which conservatives test government is how much freedom it will afford, which is little or no government in areas other than defense, justice, and internal order."
-Paul V. Niemeyer, Kenyon College

"My own conservatism is Burkean in conception, premised upon absolute standards of morality and of natural law, from which, in turn, the concept of the dignity and worth of the human being is derived....It is silly to speak of any type of morality unless man is a free agent, and thus the highest political goal becomes the preservation of individual liberties."
-Michael Uhlmann, Yale University

The style of it all! The style of each of those profound statements. In his America's Steadfast Dream, E. Merrill Root wrote that his purpose was to say "No to the creed of private man being crushed into public mass....No to the secularism that is based on a temporal (and I think temporary) dogma....I would restore God and the values that flow from God...." The Americans for Constitutional Action stated this as its program:
"ACA believes that the Constitution is based on ethical and political principles which originally arose out of religious faith and conviction and even today rests on these sanctions: ....1) That each person's rights, liberties, and responsibilities are endowed by God....2. That government's basic function is to be a servant in securing these God-given, inalienable rights....3. That the only proper powers government has are those clearly and consciously delegated to it...."

The excellent book and filmstrip Two Worlds had a chart contrasting Communism with Freedom. Under Communism: "....Finally, your individuality is suppressed by the state. You are considered nothing more than physical matter in motion, an animal." Thus: "Man tends to be animal-like. Moral considerations are unimportant. Man yields to the state in order to survive -- becomes a number." With Freedom, by contrast: "You are considered to have a soul, a Divine creation. Your individuality is recognized and respected by both state and your fellow man." Thus: "You tend to react in accord with moral standards; reflect your Divine creation. You regard and respect your fellow man as an individual also."

Clarence E. Manion, in his The Key to Peace: A Formula for the Perpetuation of Real Americanism, wrote: "....Since God had created each of them as individuals with personal and immortal destinies, no man, majority, or government could hereafter treat or regard any of them as an indistinguishable part of a class, collective, or group."

Admiral Ben Moreel, in his The Admiral's Log, summed up his creed thusly:
"1. God
"2. individual sovereignty
"3. limited government"

General Edwin Anderson Walker's anti-Communist "Pro-Blue" program stressed "faith in God and self".

These expressions of Conservative thought are all from books written back in the 1950s and early 1960s, the days when I was a boy. H. L. "Bill" Richardson's Slightly To The Right (1965) has a similar definition of what it means to be a Conservative, and the definitive statement of this synthesis ("the autonomy of the person" and "the authority of truth and good") is Frank S. Meyer's In Defense of Freedom (1962). Many, many others. But these same elements continue to permeate much of Right-Wing thought. One Conservative lady, a Lesbian, who has long fascinated me is Tammy Bruce. The titles alone of her books tell quite a story: The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds and The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.

You can see a certain pattern underlying each and all of these statements, a certain synthesis.
On the one hand: culture and values, right and wrong, the authority of truth and good, faith in God, God, Divine creation, moral standards, God-given responsibilities, God and the values that flow from God, absolute standards of morality and of natural law, an absolute moral law, a natural law of order given by God, an organic moral order, virtue, a higher order, stable value, the good, Western traditional values, the essence of the West, a Divine transcendence, natural law and the lessons of history, man's ultimate destiny of union with God in the Beatific Vision, good and evil, original sin, the wisdom of his ancestors, tradition, a universal order of things, a moral law which cannot be flouted, Christian concepts, Christianity....
On the other hand: free speech and free minds, the autonomy of the person, faith in self, individual sovereignty, individuals with personal and immortal destinies, soul, individuality, inalienable rights and liberties, private man, the dignity and worth of the human being, man is a free agent, the preservation of individual liberties, in which individuals may live their lives based on their own thinking and deciding -- the freedom required for morality, the integrity of the individuality of the person, the overriding value of his freedom, the ability of the individual to interpret the higher order, freedom, the individual, the individual exercising his freedom, freedom and individualism, the libertarian philosophy, individualism....

This has long been the language of the Right, the style of the Starboard side of a spectrum. Individual Freedom and Divine Order. The polarity of these two values has been a constant tension in our Western high culture and on the Right, which strives to conserve the essence of the West. Conservative thought has long been an effort to synthesize these values, and, especially in the United States, Conservatives have tended to divide into the theist or traditionalist wing, which emphasizes the authority of an eternal and transcendent Divine order and also of historically evolved tradition, vs. the individualist or libertarian wing, which emphasizes the autonomy of the individual man or woman. Without the first, libertarianism becomes rationalist, materialist, relativist. Without the second, traditionalism becomes collectivist. Both, in so becoming, deny the soul and thereby deny their own foundations and essence. Without a vision of the soul of the individual man or woman, gifted by God or the Gods with free will and an immortal destiny, choosing between clearly defined alternatives of good and evil, good and bad, sacred and profane, within an eternal and transcendent Divine order of absolute values -- without this vision, there can be no foundation for freedom. Without this freedom to choose, there can be no virtue or holiness. Each of these two poles presupposes the other.

As I said, this the language in which the Right speaks. This constant tension between autonomy and authority, freedom and order, liberty and discipline, individuality and Divinity, difference and transcendence, on the deepest and highest levels, has been a leitmotif of Right-Wing rhetoric and argument, sometimes emphasizing one pole, other times the other. This, more than anything, is why I am drawn to the styles of those on the Right, even when I am in strongest disagreement with them, because they speak that language. For that is the language I speak: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness. Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology. The essence of the West: The Ego striving for the Infinite.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Wed, 16 Feb 2005
Spectrumology 11 square 11: The Smith-Anderson spectrum in 3 dimensions

The dualism between the Left Hemisphere and the Right Hemisphere, or the Rationalist and the Irrationalist poles of the Pournelle Axes, keeps coming up in myriad manifestations and variations in all kinds of books that I read. I keep seeing this polarity over and over again. I think about it all the time. It's central to my characters and their ideological oppositions. In this book on 4-fold psychological typologies, The Personality Compass, the Left Hemisphere is described thusly (and is associated with the East): ""language, logic, number, sequence, linearity, analysis, calculation", while the Right Hemisphere is described thusly in contrast (and is associated with the West): "rhythm, music, images, imagination, daydreaming, color, dimension". The style of that.

In his book, The Book, Alan Watts wrote:
"I have sometimes thought that all philosophical disputes could be reduced to an argument between the partisans of "prickles" and the partisans of "goo". The prickly people are tough-minded, rigorous, and precise, and like to stress differences and divisions between things. They prefer particles to waves, and discontinuity to continuity. The gooey people are tender-minded romanticists who love wide generalizations and grand syntheses. They stress the underlying unities, and are inclined to pantheism and mysticism. Waves suit them much better than particles as the ultimate constituents of matter, and discontinuities jar their teeth like a compressed air-drill. Prickly people consider the gooey ones rather disgusting -- undisciplined vague dreamers who slide over hard facts like an intellectual slime which threatens to engulf the whole universe in a "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" (courtesy of Professor F. S. C. Northrop). But gooey philosophers think of their prickly colleagues as animated skeletons that rattle and click without any flesh or vital juices, as dry and dessicated mechanisms bereft of all finer feelings. Either party would be hopelessly lost without the other, because there would be nothing to argue about, no one would know what his position was, and the whole course of philosophy would come to an end."

The style of that dualism. I have often thought about it. I was in a library a few years ago when I saw a book, The Alphabet vs. the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image by Leonard Shlain. His main thesis is that "Literacy has promoted the subjugation of women by men throughout all but the very recent history of the West. Misogyny and patriarchy rise and fall with the fortunes of the alphabetic written word." He associates the male with the brain's Left Hemisphere, linear abstraction, and the female with the brain's Right Hemisphere, holistic visualization. The titles of his chapters express this opposition that he sees running through human history. Here are some of them: alphabet/Goddess, word/image, left brain/right brain, verbal/nonverbal, cuneiform/Marduk, hieroglyph/Isis, Hebrew/Israelites, Abraham/Moses, Adam/Eve, Ganymede/Sappho, Apollo/Dionysus, Athens/Sparta, Lingam/Yoni, Yang/Yin, Confucianism/Taoism, B.C./A.D., Jesus/Christ, patriarchs/heretics, celibacy/illiteracy, Muslim words/muslin veils, scholastic/mystic, Protestant/Catholic, superego/id, page/screen.

The style of that dualism. Following James Joyce, Robert Anton Wilson wrote of a dualism between Cain, Satan (the Archangel Lucifer), Napoleon, Shakespeare, Parnell, the Irish, the non-white races, and intuitive and artistic modes of thinking vs. Abel, the Archangel Michael, Wellington, Bacon, Gladstone, the English, the white race, and rational and political modes of thinking. This ties in with his dualism of the Eristic, which stands for "irrationality, mysticism, anarchy, and the Liberation of Everybody" vs. the Aneristic, which stands for "rationality, science, law'n'order, and Total Control of Everybody".

The style of that dualism. Some years before I encountered the Shlain book, I read a book about a man of a diametrically opposite ideology and style of ideology, a man who also thought in such a dualism, but from the opposite side. The book was The Filibuster: A Study of the Political Ideas of Wyndham Lewis. He fascinated me. He was clearly a man of the Right -- and yet diametrically opposed to certain other men of the Right in the most interesting way possible. He wrote a book, Time and Western Man, in which, among other things, he wrote a chapter in which he opposed Oswald Spengler. Like Spengler, he was, as I said, a man of the Right, anti-democratic, elitist, individualistic, and at the same time leaned toward authoritarian, even fascist, government. But he was a Classicist and an opponent of Romanticism, a Francophile and a Germanophobe. He also opposed Henri Bergson, D. H. Lawrence, and Friedrich Nietzsche. He was anti-feminist, very much a Transcendental Scientist in his thinking. He saw something "dangerously Germanic" in Spengler's association of Time, History, and Destiny with the Feminine. Nietzsche's rhapsodies, in This Spake Zarathustra, to "this Woman, this Ring of Eternity", would certainly have been anathema to Wyndham Lewis. D. H. Lawrence wrote of Aztec mythology and invoked "the dark wisdom of the Blood" against the rational intellect. Henri Bergson championed the subjective, the intuitive, the organic, and the flow of time against the objective, the logical, the geometrical, and the fixity of space. Wyndham Lewis reversed these evaluations, and championed the precision, form, and definition of Classicism against "mysterious and stormy" Romanticism, the Plastic against the Musical, and preferred Newton and Euclidean space over Einstein and curved space. The style of it all! I love the styles both of Wyndham Lewis and of those he opposed, Lawrence, Bergson, Spengler, Nietzsche. I have ever since always regarded him as a most interesting and worthy adversary.

Bridson, in so describing the thought and style of Lewis, discussed a fascinating polarity which Norman Mailer wrote in a book of his, Advertisements for Myself:
Romanticism, "the hip", the spontaneous, instinct, the nihilistic, the Negro (or the black, today), crooks, Heidegger, sex, the body, the differential calculus, Marx as a psychologist, Trotsky, Dostoyevsky, D. H. Lawrence, Churchill, anarchists, Picasso, to seduce by touch, and the present
vs.
Classicism, "the square", the orderly, logic, the authoritarian, the white (or "honky"), cops (or "The Fuzz"), Sartre, religion, the mind, analytic geometry, Marx as a sociologist, Lenin, Tolstoy, Aldous Huxley, Attlee, socialists, Mondrian, to seduce by reasoned argument, and the past and/or planned future.

On the first side, Bridson puts also James Joyce and on the second Wyndham Lewis himself. On the first side, Dionysus, and on the second side, Apollo, following Nietzsche. Mailer puts Catholicism on the Romantic side and Protestantism with the Classic, while Lewis saw them reversely. The style of that dualism.

Oswald Spengler saw it from the opposite point of view. His book, The Decline of the West is permeated from beginning to end with the most evocative and profound polarities. Among these:
"the world of Plato, Rembrandt, Goethe, and Beethoven" vs. "the world of Parmenides, Descartes, Kant, and Newton", "History as thing-becoming" vs. "Nature as thing-become", "Form" vs. "Law", "Time and the Destiny-idea" vs. "Space and the Causality-principle", "chronological number" vs. "mathematical number", "the lived, felt, unconfined 'Nature' of Homer and the Eddas, of Doric and Gothic man" vs. "the number-based, unmystical, dissectable and dissected 'Nature' of Aristotle and Kant, the Sophists and the Darwinians", "Soul, potentiality, fulfillment (Life), becoming, direction, organic, symbol, portrait" vs. "World, actuality, the become, extension, mechanical, number, notion", "History, rhythm, form, physiognomic, facts" vs. "Nature, tension, law, systematic, truths".

The style of that dualism! In yet another extremely interesting book, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right by Tomislav Sunic, detailing the thought and argument of the Polytheistic Counter-Revolution led by Alain de Benoist, I encountered this statement of their ideas and ideals, including a dualism very similar to the above:
"Our concept of the world does not refer to one theorist, but instead to a given number of ideas. i.e., cognitions that refer to specific heritages within common European values. We refer to the research works of those theorists who have not handed down the dogmatic "deciphering" of the world phenomenon: Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, Oswald Spengler, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alexis Carrel, and Jacob von Uexkull, Konrad Lorenz, Arnold Gehlen, Hans Jurgen Eysenck, and Louis Rougier, Vilfredo Pareto, and Helmut Schelsky, Georges Sorel, and Max Weber, Ernst Junger, Carl Schmitt, etc....
"Our new school of thought sets its philosophical system of thought, as far as the domain of ethics is concerned, within the guidelines of pre-Socratic thinkers, Stoicists, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche....
"Our school stresses the primacy of life over all transmitted world-views, the primacy of soul over spirit, the primacy of feelings over intellect, and finally of character over reason....
Hence it follows that our school is unconditionally opposed to all systems of absolute characteristics, given that these systems imply the idea of determinism, of a single truth or of a monotheism, in which we think to be able to discern the roots of totalitarianism. Our new school shares the view that the common denominator for all these systems is universalism, i.e., the teaching of egalitarianism, be it of Aristotelian, Thomist, Judeo-Christian, or Marxist origin...."

The style of that! All of which reminds me of Whittaker Chambers's dualism in his Witness between "Man, Mind, and Communism" vs. "God, Soul, and Freedom". (The mind of a Communist can hear the screams of those tortured and murdered in Stalin's prisons and rationalize it all as historically necessary -- but when his soul hears those screams, he must break with Communism and turn to God, as Chambers did.) Chambers defined Communism as "man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world". As this also describes Ayn Rand's own anti-Communist_ philosophy (as she would proudly boast), it was inevitable that these two powerful enemies of Communism would become bitter enemies of one another as well, which they did. The dualism between Chambers and Rand became a triad when the great Conservative poet and philosopher E. Merrill Root defended Rand as a noble defender of individualist values against creeping collectivism -- but also argued that these values must ultimately be rooted in the theistic. He noted that Roark's vision came far closer to "the rainbow mind of Christ" than anything coming out of the National Council of Churches (which preached the "Socialist Gospel"). The style of it all!

That reminds me of how Thomas Molnar, a traditional Catholic Conservative, got together with Alain de Benoist, Polytheist Reactionary, to write L'Eclipse du Sacre (Eclipse of the Sacred), opposing today's secularism, progressivism, and egalitarianism.

All of these dualisms of dualisms, polarities upon polarities, theses and antitheses, based upon the binarity of the two hemispheres, led me to think more and deeper about the Smith-Anderson spectrum. As I wrote:
One dimension, the Left-Right dimension, is that of blurring vs. sharpening and even glorifying differences. In other words, "One, One World, One Everything" vs. opposing that. The other dimension, the vertical dimension, is that of suppressing vs. legalizing or even glorifying the different. In other words, "One Way, Only One Way" vs. "Anything Goes".

I thought about it all. Oswald Spengler and Wyndham Lewis would occupy pretty much the same position with regard to both axes of this spectrum as so far described, both men of the Right, both seeing the fundamental metaphysical necessity for differences, distinctions, and divisions, hierarchies, oppositions, conflict, war. Yet they were themselves antagonists, stemming from this dualism between the Left Hemisphere vs. the Right Hemisphere. Spengler was a Rightist of the Right Hemisphere. Lewis was also a Rightist, but of the Left Hemiisphere, very much like Ayn Rand. As I have adumbrated, there are Leftists both of the Left and of the Right Hemispheres.

And, so, I thought of 3 dimensions: 1) a dimension of attitudes as to the different, legalizing or glorifying vs. suppressing, 2) a dimension of attitudes as to differences, blurring vs. sharpening or glorifying, 3) a dimension of attitudes toward these two hemispheres, or the rational vs. the irrational. I decided that I could use this spectrum with either the original 2 or with 3 dimensions. I thought of tie-ins with other spectra, and I thought of tie-ins with my own 3 highest, holiest, eternal, absolute values, dogmas, as you can see at the top of my sidebar on the right: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness. As I thought about it: The first dimension, valuing the different, corresponds to Sexiness. The second dimension, valuing differences, corresponds to Selfishness. The third dimension, valuing the irrational or mythic, corresponds to Polytheistic Godliness.

Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology. I'll conclude this on that note, I think. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Sun, 13 Feb 2005
Some more thoughts on that spectrum....

Some more thoughts on that spectrum of mine before I get started on my next and final big one of this series. I loved the idea of a circle, but I guess I'm back to envisioning this thing as a square. I was thinking this morning, just as Jim Baen did with Jerry Pornelle's spectrum, of the odd antipathies or antagonisms between adjacent quadrants and the odd sympathies or alliances, often very uneasy alliances, between diagonally opposite quadrants. The main antagonisms, the most clear and enduring antagonisms, are along the vertical sides on both left and right, the Economic Individualists vs. the Economic Collectivists, the Spiritual Individualists vs. the Spiritual Collectivists. Along the horizontal sides, both top and bottom, things seem a little more complicated.

Along the vertical sides, the two poles are constantly at war, eternal enemies. But at least they feel they know where they stand with each other, and they feel that at least their eternal enemies know what the real issues are. Those in between are despised by both ends. On the left side, the pragmatic Materialist Moderates are despised by both the Capitalists and the Socialists for they stand for nothing at all. The Libertarians see them as statists while the Egalitarians see them as tools of big business. On the right side, both the Spiritual Individualists and the Moral Collectivists tend to distrust the conflicted Spiritual Conservatives, as the Individualists or the Libertines often tend see them as forbidding too many things while the Collectivists see them as trying to legalize too many things.

Along the horizontal sides, bottom and top, there is similar distrust. Along the bottom, the Spiritual Collectivists despise the Economic Collectivists as shallow materialists while the Economic Collectivists dismiss the Spiritual Collectivists as superstitious reactionaries. But they are willing to make alliances in order to bring down their hated opponents at the top. Hitler aligned himself with Stalin for a time against Churchill, and the Moral Majority join with the Politically Correct to ban "obscenity". The closer one is to Total Collectivism, the more chance for a stable alliance there.

Along the top, there is similar conflict. As I noted, Ayn Rand seems to represent the "Center" of this top side, the most integrated Individualist, fusing the Economic with the Spiritual. This is the Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged and her subsequent non-fiction works. The Ayn Rand of The Fountainhead and of her earlier fiction such as her play Ideal looks to me to be further to the right on this spectrum, closer to the purely Spiritual Individualists such as Friedrich Nietzsche (and, today, Camille Paglia). I have often thought that admirers of Ayn Rand could be divided into those who prefer Atlas Shrugged and those who prefer The Fountainhead. I myself prefer The Fountainhead for its greater depth of characterization and its focus on the Spiritual issues ("....Individualism vs. Collectivism, not in politics but in Man's soul...."). Some Nietzscheans and others on the Spiritual Individualist right on this spectrum dislike Rand because of her emphasis on reason and her condemnations of "mysticism". (This ties in with my next spectrum, the 3-dimensional spectrum which I will be describing soon.) I myself have had an off-and-on relationship with Ayn Rand over precisely this issue, e.g., after re-reading Oswald Spengler for the third time a few years ago, I thought her view of history was too linear, and I am a Polytheist rather than an Atheist. I agree fundamentally with Camille Paglia's critique of Ayn Rand on this point.

On the other side, many Libertarians on the Economic Individualist left on this spectrum dislike Rand because of her insistence on grounding capitalism, which they see as purely efficient and practical, on moral and metaphysical foundations. One Libertarian economist attacked The Fountainhead as un-capitalistic because Roark was too selfish in a Spiritual sense, was too loyal to his values, to be a good businessman in his view. The way this economist argued, even Wynand had too much integrity, and only Keating would fit into the "free market" as he described it, having no values of his own but existing merely to supply consumer demand (and for what do the consumers exist and whence derives their demands?). Dominique would obviously be even further outside his scheme of Economic Man, this quintessentially and exquisitely Spiritual Woman would be totally incomprehensible to such a blockhead. Once again, shallow materialists vs. superstitious reactionaries. I'm a superstitious reactionary.

I'm picturing dotted diagonal lines within this square of a spectrum. There is a tenuous, uneasy alliance between the Spiritual Collectivists and at least some of the Economic Individualists. E.g., I must say I was disgusted when I saw that Libertarian economist Milton Friedman gave a favorable blurb to a book by the thoroughgoing Moral Collectivist Robert Bork, the closest real-life equivalent to Toohey. There is a tenuous alliance between some of the Spiritual Individualists and at least some of the Economic Collectivists. E.g., the ACLU is so torn between its Individualist and its Collectivist premises that its positions on the First Amendment and on the Second Amendment* completely contradict each other. I see a similar diagonal line of alliance or affinity between Ayn Rand and certain of the Spiritual Conservatives in many ways, for both strive to integrate a defense of individual freedom with a strong belief in an objective or transcendent moral order. Despite all that I said in the preceding paragraph, I must say that Rand is still admired by many Individualists both to her right and to her left on this spectrum despite their disagreements with her total philosophy on certain points, and I must mention again that the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice, which primarily stress economics and property rights, did write excellent briefs in defense of Lawrence and Garner in that crucial Spiritual decision.

(*Actually, the right to keep and bear arms for defense of oneself and one's loved ones is far more of a Spiritual than an Economic issue, and certain Marxists have been known to oppose gun control as a tool of the ruling class to disarm the working class. But because so many of the Economic Collectivists on the left have moved toward Totalitarian Collectivism, Political Correctness, and perhaps also because guns are seen by them as well as by Economic Individualists primarily as a symbol of defense of property, that quadrant of this spectrum increasingly calls for a ban on individual ownership of guns. And Individualists on all sides of this spectrum are increasingly opposing government gun control and defending the individual ownership of guns. See my friend Jeff Soyer at Alphecca.)

Interesting questions about it all.... I think I've said all I can think of to say about this spectrum for the present. I've really got to think up a distinctive name for it.... I must begin writing about that 3-dimensional spectrum, which ties in with this and many others in many ways. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Sat, 12 Feb 2005
War and the military on that spectrum?....

On that spectrum I just described to you, I notice that I had economic issues and spiritual (religious-sexual) issues, and attitudes toward each in terms of freedom and control as well as their relative importance, but one element or dimension I did not include was attitudes toward war and military issues. This is true of the Nolan spectrum, and a number of other spectra as well. So, where would I put attitudes toward war and the military on this spectrum? Hmmm....

I've long noticed that both economic and military issues are both large-scale, public, "macro" issues that politicians like to deal with, and are traditionally seen as "masculine", while religious and sexual issues are more small-scale, private, "micro" issues that are generally removed from the political realm and reserved for the more strictly cultural realm, and also are traditionally perceived as "feminine". Many interesting questions about all that....

On the other hand, it strikes me that "dovish" or anti-military attitudes prevail more among both economic libertarians and economic egalitarians because not as many feel that economic issues, largely issues centering around money, are worth risking one's life for. Conversely, "hawkish", pro-war, pro-military attitudes prevail more among the spiritually-minded because they feel that their values are very much worth risking one's life for.

Interesting questions about it all.... I have to go to the store and get some things. After I get back with those things, I'll start on the final post within this series, a possible 3rd dimension to the Smith-Anderson spectrum. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

Update: I'm back with some foodstuffs. I'll start on the big thing tomorrow.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Fri, 11 Feb 2005
Spectrum 10: a square that turns into a circle?

Before I start with the next spectrum, a couple more little stories come to my mind that illustrate certain ideological styles on the Right. One is when Smith and I were up in his room reading a booklet by one of Rev. Dr. Billy James Hargis's men, The Beatles: A Study in Sex, Drugs, and Revolution. In it, he had a chart contrasting "good music" vs. "rock'n'roll". He said that good music is spiritual, uplifting, and Christian, while the other music is sensual, sexual, and therefore degenerate and degrading. He then said that moral music has this beat: 1'-2-3'-4, while immoral music has this beat: 1-2'-3-4'. Hmmm.... That has always stuck in my mind ever since. An interesting dualism: 1'-2-3'-4 vs. 1-2'-3-4' The style of such a dualism.

The other incident was way back in 1967 or 1968, one of my earliest encounters with Rightist thought. On "The David Susskind Show", he had some guests who were very conservative, Birchers, an old man and an old lady. They showed clips of a film, a cartoon, about some 1984-style society of the future in which a man had the number "1313" stamped on his forehead. At one point, Susskind asked the old man what he thought was the basic difference between liberals and conservatives. The man replied: "Liberals emphasize the group, the state, the collective. Conservatives emphasize the individual." The style of that! Susskind also asked the old man what he thought of miniskirts, and the old reactionary replied: "I think they're very attractive." The style of that! I totally agree, and you can guess where I would see him on the "Smitty'n'Andy" spectrum. Very high. The style of the whole thing! I must confess that, at the time, I was a socialist, nay, a Communist, and didn't appreciate the value of that as I do now. I do now. The style!

On with the spectrum....

In this post here, over a year and half ago, I quoted this from The Ayn Rand Letter, September 10, 1973 ("Censorship: Local And Express"). Ayn Rand observed:

"The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of wealth, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man's spirit, i.e., man's consciousness; they advocate the State's right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect.
"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm, they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with 'academic freedom'). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property -- they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
"The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories -- with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewhweeling to the farthest reaches of the universe -- but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
"Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the 'mystics of spirit'. And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the 'mystics of muscle'.
"This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises."

I then noted:

I must add that it is the spiritually-minded "conservatives" ("Jehovanists") who fear, hate, and want to control and suppress sex as much as possible, while the materialist "liberals" ("Naturalists") regard sex as unimportant, as trivial, and would leave it alone. This proves, if nothing else does, that sex is spiritual.

Thinking about that, I began to see a spectrum with 2 dimensions. One dimension is that of what you think is more important, the economic or the spiritual. The other dimension is whether you think the most important things should be controlled by society, the state, etc., or left free and in the hands of the individual. In other words, Materialists vs. Spiritualists, and Collectivists vs. Individualists. As I envision this spectrum, the Materialists are on the left, the Spiritualists are on the right. At the bottom are the Collectivists, and at the top are the Individualists.

In the lower left corner are the kind of liberals Rand described, welfare state, New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, Great Society, and Marxists or quasi-Marxists. Historically, they have been the dominant element within the Democratic party since the New Deal or before. They see economics, especially the distribution of wealth, as the most important thing to consider, and their main concern is to see to it that wealth is distributed more equally. Thus, they emphasize progressive taxes, subsidies, government-funded programs of all sorts, and regulation of business. Whatever is important should be subsidized by the government. They tend to be for free speech, free press, and other liberties in the non-economic realm, but mainly so as to allow "progressive" groups or individuals to advocate more economic reforms and to expose corruption by big business. They see economics as the driving force in history, the rich vs. the poor, and they look for the economic motive behind everything. If there is a war or other problem or controversy, some greedy business interest is believed to be benefiting from it. "Follow the money" is one of their favorite sayings. In Murray S. Davis's typology, they tend to be Naturalists.

In the upper left corner are the old-style or original, "classical" liberals, the libertarians or most of them, economic or fiscal conservatives. Historically, they have been the dominant element within the Republican party since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. Their main interest is in the production of wealth, and their main concern is to see to it that it is left free and unhindered. Free, competitive, private enterprise, motivated by the profit motive. Capitalism. That is the system that works best for all. Let capitalists create wealth and jobs, and make unlimited profits in the process, without interference. Less government in the economy and more economy in the government. They oppose progressive income taxes, deficit spending (which leads to debt and inflation), and government controls in economics. They usually favor a return to the gold standard in order to insure fiscal responsibility, fiscal integrity, and a sound dollar. Liberty magazine took a poll a few years back of who were the top libertarian figures of the 20th century. Of the top 5 chosen, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, the last 4 were economists, and Rand had written a book on capitalism, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The winner was Ludwig von Mises, whose most famous achievement was that he showed, back in the 1920s, that economic calculation was impossible under socialism because of the lack of a price system. This is not to say that economic libertarians value only economic liberties. To the contrary, two leading libertarian or libertarian-conservative organizations, the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice wrote excellent briefs for the Supreme Court in defense of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner. And they consistently defend free speech. But, overall, they tend to see economic freedom and property rights as the necessary, and sometimes even sufficient, precondition for all other freedoms, and so they focus on preserving or restoring that as much as possible.

In the lower right corner are the "family morality" conservatives, the "Moral Majority", the "New Right" as they are also called, the "Radical Right", the Moral Collectivists. They are increasingly dominant within the Republican party. They see religion and ideas, the spiritual, as the driving force in history. In Murray S. Davis's typology, they are the consistent Jehovanists. They are quite willing to allow business considerable freedom to act in the material realm because economic production benefits society as a whole, and "you can't take it with you", so make all the profits you want while here on this earth. But they want to control, or to have "the authorities", the state, the church, the patriarchal family, society as a whole, control the mind, spirit, and soul, and therefore, with that, the body. Sex must be tolerated only insofar as it benefits the family, the church, the state, society as a whole, in other words, only for reproduction. Any and all deviant, non-reproductive sex offends God and His church, and tears at the moral fabric of family and society, pollutes the purity of society, corrupts the children, threatens to overthrow the state, and must be prohibited. Society must step in and stop it. Pornography, obscenity, dangerous thoughts and ideas, must be censored and prohibited. Family Morality must control all. All must conform, or be made to conform. All deviation must be suppressed and eliminated.

In the upper right corner are the Individualists of the mind, spirit and soul, and therefore of the body, the deviants, the non-conformists. In Murray S. Davis's typology, they are the Gnostics. They, too, see religion and ideas, the spiritual, and therefore, with that and in that, the sexual, as the driving force in history. They may align themselves with the economic libertarians or with the welfare-staters, but they tend to be uninterested in economic questions or see economic issues as secondary to and derivative from the more fundamental spiritual issues. They are interested in the freedom of the soul, and therefore of the body at his or her most soulful, in the meaning of sex, of the self, of the Divine, which meaning must be defined by each individual for himself or herself. Sex is the most private, most individualistic, of all expressions or relations, the expression of one's innermost being, the sacred bond between two individual women or men or a woman and her man, for those individuals, and not for the state, society, church, or family. Censorship is an intolerable strangulation of the soul. Thought, above all else, must be free. And it is precisely because ideas are so crucial and powerful that bad ideas can only be fought by good ideas, not by censorship. The individual must stand alone, apart from, and above the herd, must think and act for himself or herself.

These corners or end-points, as in all such spectra, largely define it, but just as important here are the points in between those, along the edges or sides. I will now describe those, too.

Along the left side of this spectrum are all the pragmatic businessmen and politicians, who think of economic issues as the most important and the other issues as merely "emotional", "hot-button" issues that only the "religious extremists" get wrought up about. In Murray S. Davis's typology, they are thorough Naturalists, but who will give in to the Jehovanists on any issue just to avoid controversy. In economics, they favor freedom or controls on a purely pragmatic, whatever-works, day-to-day, moment-by-moment, range-of-the-moment basis. They are in the "middle of the road", the "Center", as they see themselves, practical, non-ideological, willing to compromise on anything. They are the quintessential "moderates".

Along the right side of this spectrum are the numerous religious conservatives who value freedom but also see a need for authority, who abhor totalitarianism but also fear anarchy. They seek a balance or tension. They tend to favor some controls, some censorship, but not too sweeping or intrusive. E.g., pornography or other sexual expression should not be altogether banned, but should be restricted to certain times and places. They see much or most sex as moral, but believe a number of forms of sex are immoral, but do not believe that these can or should be stamped out by law. They stress the role of the church, marriage, and the family rather than the state in upholding religion and morality. They tend to agree that wrong ideas can only be fought by right ideas. In Murray S. Davis's typology, they are Jehovanistic Gnostics or Gnostic Jehovanists. They are the quintessential true conservatives.

At the bottom of this spectrum are the consistent totalitarians, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and today's Political Correctness movement. They want to control both economics and ideas. They want total control of everything, period. Nothing is too insignificant that it must not be brought under the total control of the collective. Property is oppression and so is sex. Both must be abolished. In Murray S. Davis's typology, they are total Jehovanists. What you eat, what you drink or smoke, what you wear, your work and your play, what you say and think and feel and dream, every moment of your life, all must conform to the new Procrustean norm of Political Correctness, total equality, uniformity, in everything, not only in economics but in everything else as well. The revolutionary ideology must control all. All must conform, or be made to conform. All deviation must be suppressed and eliminated.

At the top of this spectrum I would have to put Ayn Rand. She wrote extensively and uncompromisingly in defense of free enterprise in industry as well as in ideas, but she always saw capitalism as inseparably part of a comprehensive, integrated philosophy which took in the metaphysical, the epistemological, the ethical, the aesthetic, as well as the political and the economic. She saw freedom of thought, speech, and art as the precondition for a free economy and uncompromisingly opposed censorship as much as socialism, the welfare state, or the mixed economy. She saw ideas as the driving force of history, man's mind as his highest value, his loyalty to his mind as his highest virtue, and the industrial entrepreneur as the supreme embodiment of the mind in action upon this earth, using his mind to create the values that sustain and enhance man's life. She valued sex as the highest celebration of life, of one's efficacious mind and of one's loved one's mind as well as body. She opposed both the Jehovanists and the Naturalists. In Murray S. Davis's typology, she was a Gnostic with certain Jehovanistic elements, as she regarded some forms of sex as immoral and disgusting, but she opposed any laws against it. The state must stay out of our bedrooms as well as out of our boardrooms, railroads, mills, and factories.

The shape of this spectrum is interesting, as well as its tie-ins with other spectra. In some ways, I conceived it as a variant on the original Smith-Anderson spectrum. It ties in in some ways with the Pournelle spectrum, with the OICU2/AFC spectrum, and with others I discussed. It also ties in with the Nolan spectrum. The main difference between this spectrum and the Nolan spectrum is that I not only asked where one stands on various questions of economic or personal freedoms or controls, but also the equally important question of how much importance does one place on economic as opposed to non-economic or spiritual issues. That is the difference.

As to the shape of this spectrum, I have up till recently conceived it as we conceived "Smitty'n'Andy", as most 2-dimensional spectrums are, as a square with 2 axes and 4 quadrants, 4 corners and 4 edges, which I've described to you. But, I got to thinking about it and I decided that it could just as easily be a circle. I liked the idea. Most spectra, whether 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional, have a "Center", a middle position. E.g., in the Pournelle spectrum, that center, the interior of the square, is occupied by moderate conservatives/libertarians having a Burkean or Sowellian-style "constrained" vision. But I looked at this spectrum of my own which I just described and wondered what the center would be, or if indeed there was such a thing. What looks closest to a moderate, middle-of-the-road, play-it-by-ear, purely pragmatic, non-commital position, that of most of our politicians, is well described by the pure Materialist, mixed-economy, politician or businessman on the left side of my spectrum. I'm thinking of a spectrum I saw, one of the few designed by a woman, based on a Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian-style polarity, a circle, in which all the positions are locatable on the circumference with no need for a "center" or interior. And I thought that this spectrum could be that also, with all positions on the circumference. I love a circle. It symbolizes the feminine to me, to which I am drawn. I decided, then, that this spectrum could indeed be a circle. And with, as I said, a woman on top, Ayn Rand, the completely integrated Individualist. Would she like that? Hmmm.... An interesting idea, anyway....

I think I will write one last post in this particular series on spectrumology, the grand finale, "Smitty'n'Andy" in 3-dimensions. I don't know how long that will take me, but you'll see it when you see it. After that, I'll continue to throw spectrums at you, as well as color wheels and whatever else, but this will be a climax. I've been building up to it since I started this whole thing. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Thu, 10 Feb 2005
My favorite things: some spectrums of color and....

As you can see, I love to discover, to create, and to contemplate spectrums of ideologies and all their ramifications, permutations, and tie-ins. I also love a spectrum of colors, a color wheel like this one here (more on that here), or this gorgeous one here. Here's a square spectrum of colors, with 2 dimensions: red vs. blue-green, blue vs. yellow. Here's another square spectrum very similar to that, and here's more on a program of some sort that uses that spectrum and also shows a number of dualities of color. Here are some fascinating variations on red to cyan in the process of creating a color wheel.

Here are 6 dimensions of color:
oppositions of red-green-blue (RGB -- the additive primaries) and cyan-magenta-yellow (CMY -- the subtractive primaries),
hue,
saturation,
value,
chroma,
luminance.

There is one and only one thing I love as much as or more than a spectrum of ideologies or of colors, and that is an exquisitely pulchritudinous woman such is she is here. I must say that I'm obsessed with this picture ever since I first saw it. I think of this as my favorite image now of holy Dawn, holy Norma's captivating captive Goddess. I will write more about my characters and their spectrums in the future. Up With Beauty!

[/Colors] permanent link

Spectrumology 69: ....the total passion for the total height....

Steven Malcolm Anderson has asked me to fill in for him for this post. This is Stephanie Estelle Xayananh, his higher self. I will be discussing one of the most important, if not the most important, spectrum ever invented, that outlined by Professor Murray S. Davis in his seminal masterpiece, Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology, by far the most profound book on the psychology, philosophy, ideology, spectrumology, and theology, the whole Gestalt, of sex that I have ever cast eyes upon. Professor Davis begins by describing a fundamental dualism between two realities: "everyday reality", and that which transcends and transforms, intensifies, "everyday reality", i.e., "erotic reality", which might also be named "aphroditic reality". He then outlines a triadic, triangular spectrum of 3 fundamental ideologies or ideological orientations which, in opposing ways, attempt to deal with this chasm between everyday reality and erotic/aphroditic reality. These three ideologies he names: "Naturalist", "Jehovanist", and "Gnostic". In a post I wrote here a couple years ago, I discribed this spectrum as follows:

Three more terms I have been using and will continue to use are derived from Professor Murray S. Davis's seminal Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology, to which I have and will continue to refer quite often. This is the most profound book, both philosophically and psychologically, that I have yet seen on the subject of human sexuality. Dr. Davis explores the division between "everyday reality" and "erotic reality" in our experience. He then analyzes the three primary approaches that we take toward this. In a nutshell: The "Naturalist" minimizes this cleavage, sees sexuality as simply a harmless release of tensions. The "Jehovanist" sees sexuality as a dangerous building up of tensions, as a threat to the social or cosmic order or "everyday reality", which must be suppressed or restricted, esp. to the reproductive function, as much as possible. The "Gnostic" also sees sexuality as a dangerous building up of tensions -- and revels in the danger, seeing "everyday reality" as essentially false or superficial and "erotic reality" as the essentially true, as deeper and higher, as "nobly evil" in the Nietzschean sense, as holy, as the Divine within the Individual.

That pretty well says it. I also discussed my spectrum of sexual orientations in this post here:

heterosexual________________homosexual

androsexual________________gynosexual

Additional axes could be these:

promiscuous________________monogamous

sadistic____________________masochistic

(In those old posts I expressed an antagonism toward certain types of "Jehovanist" Christians that I would today put in another way. Actually, almost no generalizations whatever can be made about Christians or Christianity, nor do I see Christians or Christianity as necessarily antagonistic to the old polytheism or "Gnosticism". I'm thinking in particular of my friends Robin Georg Olsen and Eric Scheie, who are both Christian and Pagan, but also of many other Christians whom I have known or read. Also, here is an updated link to Don Watkins's splendid post on the selfishness of sex. Anyway!....)

Naturalists are the "fuzzy liberals" who permeate modern secular culture, particularly the mass media and educational institutions. On the Smith-Anderson spectrum, their attitude is both "Anything Goes" and "One, One World, One Everything", "soft", "permissive", "fuzzy", and "blurring" of all distinctions. There are no absolutes, no blacks or whites, only shades of gray, everything is relative and in constant flux, blowing this way and that with each new fad. They advocate "tolerance" in the name of "progress". Their attitude is secularist, empiricist, materialist, and reductionist. Sex is "normal, natural, healthy", and also "no big deal", just a joke or harmless way to spend the day, so why make such a fuss over it? Explicit sex education should begin with kindergarten, nudity should be ubiquitous, all taboos should be erased. Taboos are irrational, un-scientific, and out of date, out of the "swing" of our modern times. They are by far the most numerous next to the Jehovanists, who are and have long been the majority, but are also by far, by the very nature of their ideology, just Peikoff-obviously, the weakest.

Jehovanists are the "law and order" or "family morality" conservatives who now dominate all 3 branches of our government (the White House, both the House of Representatives and and the Senate, and the Supreme Court, as well as many state and local governments), the military, and, most important of all, religion, the churches, particularly the most traditional, doctrinal, and dogmatic churches, the fundamental churches, both Catholic and Protestant as well as Orthodox Jewish. Their attitude is "One Way, Only One Way". There are eternal, unchanging absolutes, black and white, revealed in God's Word, preached in the churches, and to be taught in the family and in the schools, encoded into law and enforced by the police, courts, and prisons. They advocate "intolerance" in the name of "morality". There is one and only one moral, proper, allowable, tolerable form of sex, and that is heterosexual intercourse within monogamous marriage, within and for the sake of the family, for the sole purpose of breeding children, preferably lots and lots of children, to serve the church, family, society as a whole, and the state, with the man on top and the woman on the bottom. 30 years ago, Jehovanists also believed that they must be of the same race. Absolutely anything and everything else is deviant, and "deviant" is by definition wrong, immoral, "an abnormal, unnatural, unhealthy lifestyle", an aberration, an abomination, a sickness, a sin against God, a crime against the family and against all of society, and should be against the law. Davis shows a "Periodic Table of Perversions" showing all the manifold permutations, all the polymorphous or polychromatic perversions, of sexual desire and expression which are prohibited.

Santorum listed a few of these: "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does." That was in addition to his famous "man on dog" and "man on child". "And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home?"

AP: "The right to privacy lifestyle?"

SANTORUM: "The right to privacy lifestyle."

After the majority of the United States Supreme Court, in John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner vs. State of Texas, on June 26, 2003, struck down all state laws prohibiting homosexual relations as well as heterosexual relations involving anal, oral, woman on top, or other "deviant" sex, Justice Scalia warned that this decision would call into question "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity...." We absolutely must have laws against masturbation, the root of all evil. It leads to all kinds of deviant thoughts, which may or will lead to all kinds of deviant actions. You may remember my spectrum of the Supreme Court, which I described shortly after that decision, as well as my explanation of the vertical axis (that of individual freedom vs. totalitarianism) of that spectrum (the horizontal axis being that of equality vs. inequality).

Tom Coburn, recently elected to the Senate from Oklahoma, warned of this danger to God's church, and to man's family, society, and state:
"You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. He lives in Colgate and travels out of Atoka. He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

In 1961, W. Cleon Skousen, in his very interesting book The Naked Communist, listed 45 "Current Communist Goals". Among these were these:
"24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them 'censorship' and a violation of free speech and free press.
"25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
"26. Present homo-sexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy'."

But not all Jehovanists are anti-Communist by any means. Indeed, many of them are Communists. Communists are Jehovanists who want both "One Way, Only One Way" and "One, One World, One Everything". Many other Jehovanists are sympathetic to Communism. Murray S. Davis, contrasting the Naturalist and the Jehovanist philosophies, writes:

"As materialists, Naturalists respond more vehemently to any attack on their society than on their nebulous conception of the cosmos. It is bad enough for sexual repression to result in cosmic (or moral) absolutism; it is far worse for political repression to result in social authoritarianism. In fact, Naturalists fear sexual repression precisely because it may lead to political repression....

"As idealists, Jehovanists react more violently to any attack on their conception of the cosmos than on their society. Political freedom, which may result in social anarchy, is bad; but sexual freedom, which may result in cosmic chaos, is far worse. In fact, Jehovanists fear political freedom precisely because it may lead to sexual freedom. An interview with California State Senator John Briggs, proponent of an anti-homosexual ballot proposition, demonstrates how much Jehovanists admire totalitarian societies -- even Communist ones -- that have banned sexual perversions:

"Interviewer: What has led to the ultimate destruction of civilization?

"Briggs: What has? Oh, homosexuality [and] a permissive attitude.

"Interviewer: You say that the free world is where this problem is, and in the Communist world they don't have this....

"Briggs: Yes, because the government there believes that is not healthy for the nation. But in this country, these people are protected by the Supreme Court....

"Interviewer: Doesn't that make the Communist countries less free, because they ban homosexuality?...

"Briggs: Less free? No, but it makes them stronger."

Homosexuals are persecuted in Communist Cuba. In Communist China, distribution of pornography has long been punishable by death. In certain Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, homosexuals are routinely put to death in all sorts of unspeakable ways. The ultimate ideal of Jehovanist morality was spelled out by George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-Four ("1984"):

"His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse performed for its own sake. There was no need to enumerate them separately, since they were all equally culpable, and in principle, all punishable by death. In the C vocabulary, which consisted of scientific and technical words, it might be necessary to give specialized names to certain sexual aberrations, but the ordinary citizen had no need of them. He knew what was meant by goodsex -- that is to say, normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman; all else was sexcrime. In Newspeak, it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical; beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent."

One St. Jerome (who obviously does not speak for all Christians) articulated the very nadir of the Jehovanist damnation of sex long ago when he wrote: "He who loves his own wife too ardently is worse than an adulterer."

Which is opposed by: "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." -Ephesians 5:38

The Gnostic just has got to be diametrically opposed both to the "One Way, Only One Way" of the Jehovanists and to the "One, One World, One Everything" of the Naturalists. Both Jehovanists and Naturalists far outnumber Gnostics, who are a very tiny minority, very few and far between. Clear examples of Gnostics that I can think of are Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Camille Paglia, the Marquis de Sade, and de Sade's complementary opposite, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. Mainly, Gnostics seem either to be on the "deviant" fringes of our present society or else as "deviants" secretly working within conservative institutions to conserve their values. Various "witches" (Pagans), certain heretical sects of Christianity (including the original Gnostics), and occult secret societies (e.g., Knights Templars?) of pre-Enlightenment Europe would have constituted the Gnostic opposition to Jehovanist rule before Naturalism began to emerge with the Enlightenment. To find civilizations in which Gnostics ruled, in which sex was exalted and worshipped, rather than condemned and suppressed, by the ruling powers, you might have to go back to the ancient world of the Norse, Celts, Romans, Greeks, possibly even as far back as ancient Babylon or Sumer or Egypt's Middle Kingdom. Like Jehovanists and totally unlike Naturalists, Gnostics also believe in blacks and whites and eternal, transcendent, absolute values, but those absolute values are the opposite of those of the Jehovanists. Gnostics believe with Nietzsche that:

"The degree and kind of one's sexuality reaches up into the pinnacle of one's spirit."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom

And the foundation, the fountainhead, of sexuality, of all of the values which the Gnostic venerates, was also stated by Nietzsche:

"It is not the works, it is the faith that is decisive here, that determines the order of rank -- to take up once again an ancient religious formula in a new and more profound sense; some fundamental certainty that a noble soul has about itself, something that cannot be sought, nor found, nor perhaps lost:
"The noble soul has reverence for itself."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

What Gnostics derive from all this are extremely diverse and divergent. On the one hand, we have the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, in which literally "Anything Goes." On the other hand, Ayn Rand, in her 1964 Playboy interview, argued that:

"A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important."

Murray S. Davis discusses in detail the interactions between these 3 opposing ideologies. I've long noticed that both Jehovanists and Naturalists constantly accuse each other of being "obsessed" with sex. Jehovanists see Naturalists in league with Gnostics to legalize and glorify lust and perversion. Naturalists argue that Jehovanists look for and see lust and perversion in everything -- even a sponge! Naturalists, on the other hand, are the only species of humans in history who can look at a nude woman covering her body with chocolate, and say: "It's not about sex. It's about oppression by multinational corporations, blah, blah, blah..." Gnostics violently oppose everything Jehovanists advocate, but they enjoy fighting them. Gnostics and Jehovanists love to hate each other. Their styles! Jehovanists oppose everything the Gnostics want to legalize, see it as dangerous to society, but many are constantly tempted by the lure of the forbidden. Gnostics need, must have, some Jehovanistic prohibitions or taboos, mystery, the mystique of the forbidden, to struggle eternally against, to keep sex sexy, tight and high! -- and they despise Naturalists, who see sex as neither sin not sacrament but merely an insignificant joke. Naturalists argue that sex is but a biological urge like going to the bathroom. Jehovanists agree with that, but, to continue to use scatalogical metaphors within this sentence, Naturalists think it's like urinating while Jehovanists say it feels and smells more like defecating. To Gnostics, sex is like listening to, or composing, a symphony, like building a skyscraper, or a spaceship to transcend this "everyday reality", or a thermonuclear bomb to destroy it. Davis writes:

"To make their views on sex consistent, Naturalists must ground them in a self whose internal structure is amorphous or "fluid". They must see the self as a loose open system, without integrity, continually modifying itself to mirror its environment. Unlike the "rigid" self that resists change, presupposed by both Jehovanists and Gnostics, the Naturalist self adapts easily. On the other hand, sexual input does not stick to the Naturalist self, as it does to the more adhesive Jehovanist and Gnostic self. Identity components of sex partners flow out of the Naturalist self as easily as they flow in, leaving little trace with their departure. Metaphors for the Jehovanist and Gnostic self are rock and flypaper; metaphors for the Naturalist self are rubber and teflon."

In this post on "sodomy" laws, I wrote this concerning these 3 opposing ideologies:

"If sex is nothing but a joke, as the liberal "Naturalists" think, then laws against it are nothing but a joke and can be laughed off and ignored. But if sex is a sin against God and a crime against society, as "Jehovanists" believe, then laws against it must be enforced to placate God and preserve society. And if sex is a holy manifestation of the Godlike/Goddesslike self, as this "Gnostic" dogmatically believes, then laws against it are an unholy abomination and must be abolished.

The battle lines are drawn. Between those who hold opposite value-premises, there can be no compromise or coexistence, only total war. The battle lines are drawn."

This spectrum is a triangle, with these 3 ideologies as the points, as I see it. At the bottom left is the Naturalist, at the bottom right is the Jehovanist, at the top is the Gnostic. Alternatively, I see it within a square, within the 4 squares of the Smith-Anderson spectrum, with the Naturalist pointing to the left ("Commie Land" and "Hippie Land"), and the Jehovanist and the Gnostic pointing to the lower right ("The Land of Law and Order") and the upper right ("The Land of Ayn Rand (and Camille Paglia)"). The sides of the triangle represent all the various permutations of these ideologies. There are Jehovanistic Naturalists, Naturalistic Jehovanists, Gnostic Naturalists, Naturalistic Gnostics, Gnostic Jehovanists, Jehovanistic Gnostics. These permutations are as important in many ways as are the primary elements themselves. I will now close this post with a quote that expresses the entire Gnostic view of sex, that sums up my own whole view of what sex is, better than anything else I have ever read:

"When they lay in bed together it was -- as it had to be, as the nature of the act demanded, an act of violence. It was surrender, made the more complete by the force of their resistance. It was an act of tension, as the great things on earth are things of tension. It was tense as electricity, the force fed on resistance, rushing through wires of metal stretched tight; it was tense as water made into power by the restraining violence of a dam. The touch of his skin against hers was not a caress, but a wave of pain, it became pain by being wanted too much, by releasing in fulfillment all the past hours of desire and denial. It was an act of clenched teeth and hatred, it was the unendurable, the agony, an act of passion -- the word born to mean suffering -- it was the moment made of hatred, tension, pain -- the moment that broke its own elements, inverted them, triumphed, swept into a denial of all suffering, into its antithesis, into ecstasy."
-Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

2 more spectra to come: a circle and then 3 dimensions....

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Wed, 09 Feb 2005
Spectrumology #8: ....still deeper and higher: the Smith-Anderson spectrum

I've only been buiding up to this one. Going back to 1972-1973 now: In my last year of high school at the Royal Orgy House, a.k.a., good old Central High School, Monouth-Independence, Oregon, in an art class, I met a kid 2 grades below me with whom I had a lot of interesting discussions about philosophy and other things. But I had no idea how interesting he would be until after I graduated and he showed up at the door one summer evening, and he and I and my brother talked and argued far into the night. Afterwards, he noted some differences in ideological style between me and my brother (who is a lot smarter than me about a lot of things, but we still disagree about some things in similar ways). It was some argument about "detente" with the Communists (for vs. against) as I recall, one of the recurring types of arguments we have had over the decades. My brother was more rational and also more Left-Wing or moderate, while I was more emotional and extremely Right-Wing. It was interesting, but what was interesting was not so much that particular issue but the styles in which we argued it, which set the pattern in certain ways for the spectrum which we were to create. I will now name for you the three protagonists in that debate: 1) me, myself, and I: Steven Malcolm Anderson, 2) my brother: David Matthew Anderson, 3) my friend: David Lynn Smith.

After that, David Lynn Smith and I became extremely close friends ("close in every way but the one a fool would think of first", as Ayn Rand once said of Roark and Wynand). He and I spent that whole summer together. I visited and stayed at his house in Independence many times, met his folks. We spent many days in Salem hanging around the bookstore (the Paperback Exchange, from whence I got many of my favorite books -- I love used bookstores!) and other places. Tragically, his life was cut short in an automobile collision, and I never saw him alive again after that. That was the most tragic event of my life, even with the death of my father, who was also a great man. All I can say now is that if he were still alive, you'd be reading his blog now as well as mine, but he is in Heaven, Valhalla or Sessrumnir now, and it is left to me alone to carry on his noble work. It strikes me as an ominous synchronicity that, just a few days before, we ate lunch in a cemetary. Anyway!....

Smith had style, a sharp, hard, clear, fierce, argumentative style, and he loved to point out contradictions and paradoxes. We discussed at one point the strange paradox of sado-masochism: "....the idea of getting pleasure out of pain!...." At one point he exclaimed: "If there's anything I can't stand, it's a Buddhist!" The style of that! He was against the philosophy of denying the existence of individual things, bodies, souls, Gods (this is more true of "Hinayana" Buddhism than of "Mahayana" Buddhism, which seems to be polytheistic). He wondered why these philosophers didn't bump into walls which they believed to be illusions. He was disgusted by it. He was also disgusted by conservatives who claimed to be against socialism and government controls, but were also for drug laws or censorship. "How can they live with themselves?" He had very long, dark hair like a "hippie", but he was anything but that. He didn't think like a "hippie". Once, he and I had an argument over who was more "hippie". I pointed out his long hair, but he deftly pointed out that I was wearing bell-bottoms -- just like the Beatles! Yes, I must confess that I was wearing bell-bottoms! at the time, even though I got my hair cut short. I still wear a crew-cut, but I no longer wear bell-bottoms. Those are for "hippies". ha! ha! We watched the Rev. Dr. Billy James Hargis and his Crusade "for Christ and against Communism" on TV, and read many of Hargis's books and booklets such as Communist America: Must It Be?, The Total Revolution, and The Beatles: A Study in Sex, Drugs, and Revolution. I subscribed to Hargis's newspaper "The Christian Crusade" for a while. We also loved to watch"The Beverly Hillbillies" on TV, "Hawaii Five-O", the old "Star Trek", and other good shows, and we especially loved to watch the Watergate hearings.

The style of President Nixon, Agnew, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Liddy, Magruder, Mitchell, Kleindienst, Rebozo, Segretti, and all of those men! The style of Sam Ervin, Sandman (who Smith loved to hate and said he was "disgusting"), and the other men in the House and in the Senate who were putting him on trial. The style of the whole shebang! The Watergate imbroglio. The John Birch Society had plenty to say about that. The Founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch, wrote in his booklet Our Only Weapon that the goal of the Communist Conspiracy was "to make Richard Nixon the absolute dictator of the total population of the earth -- in other words, the first ruler of the world." The style of that! We loved to hate Nixon. But after Nixon resigned (huge headline in "The Capitol Journal": "Nixon To Quit"), Smith said "I feel for him". Of all of the Presidents we have ever had, at least in my lifetime, Nixon had the most style. And, I must say, that it is largely because I watched the Watergate hearings with Davin Lynn Smith that I say that. He! had style!

Anyway! On to the spectrum! One day, we were looking at an article in Psychology Today which showed a fascinating chart, a dualism, between the Left Hemisphere of your brain vs. the Right Hemisphere of your brain, and two different ideologies or ideological styles based on that, which they called "Apollonian" vs. "Dionysian", after Nietzsche's typology. The Apollonian was shown in orange-yellow, while the Dionysian was shown in purple. The style of the whole thing. The Left Hemisphere is said to be logical, analytical, verbal, mathematical, scientific, and is associated with our perception of time and things in a sequence. The Right Hemisphere is said to be intuitive, holistic, visual, mythic, artistic, and is associated with our perception of space and of simultaneity, as in the contrast of colors, and with facial recognition. Whenever I think of this dualism, I always think of Whittaker Chambers's dualism of the Mind vs. the Soul. The style of that! Now, I must note that is contradicted both by Oswald Spengler and by Henri Bergson, both of whom associated the logical intellect with space and intuition with time. Their style. The Apollonian vs. Dionysian polarity reminds me of what Ayn Rand once wrote contrasting two events that took place in the evocative year 1969: the "muck" of Woodstock, which she called "Dionysian", a mob of "hippies" wallowing in mindless drugged emotions, vs. the noble flight to the Moon of Apollo 11, which she saw as the triumph of passion disciplined and guided by reason. The style of that! In other words, the Left and the Right Hemispheres correspond to the Rationalist vs. the Irrationalist poles in the Pournelle spectrum.

That article was extremely interesting, but what was most interesting was Smith's disagreement with it, and what that led to. The article was basically the polarity that Rand outlined, but from an opposite point of view. It associated the intuitive, artistic Right Hemisphere with the Left, with the "hippies", and also with the Far East, Buddhism and the like, and the logical, scientific Left Hemisphere with the Right, with the "squares", and also with the West, completely overlooking the West's long history of Romantic art, Catholic mysticism, and Norse mythology. At one point, it identified the Left Hemisphere with reason and the Right Hemisphere with passion and imagination. And, then, it identified the Left Hemisphere with "a strong ego" and the Right Hemisphere with "no ego". We knew right then that that was totally wrong and mixed-up. Passion comes from a strong ego! That did it! We then proceeded to construct our own chart, our own dualism, our own spectrum.

As we thought about it, we saw a spectrum with 4 quadrants, 2 dimensions. We called these 4 quadrants: 1) "Commie Land" or "The People's Republic", 2) "Hippie Land", 3) "The Land of Law and Order", 4) "The Land of Ayn Rand". We saw "Commie Land" in the lower left, "Hippie Land" in the upper left, "The Land of Law and Order" in the lower right, "The Land of Ayn Rand" in the upper right.

What was the difference between a Commie and a hippie (or a Buddhist), we asked? Communists believe in collectivization enforced by the state. Hippies tend to be collectivists, but they also tend to be anarchists at the same time. Communists suppress drugs, pornography, etc.. Hippies would legalize drugs, pornography, etc.. Similarly, what was the difference between Ayn Rand and, e.g., the Rev. Dr. Billy James Hargis, the John Birch Society, or President Nixon? Rand opposed censorship and, while she thought drugs were "disgusting", she opposed laws against them. Rand also violently opposed laws against abortion. Today, Camille Paglia goes even further, extolling drugs, pornography, homosexuality, sado-masochism, prostitution, and other such individual liberties or licenses as good. Hargis, the Birchers, Nixon, and others (and later, and more so, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bork, Santorum, etc.) supported censorship and laws against drugs and other things they believed to be immoral. So, right there, we have that dimension we started this whole spectrum thing with, the dimension of government controls vs. individual freedom. On this dimension, both the Communists and Ayn Rand were consistent. Both the "hippies" and the "law and order" conservatives are enmeshed in contradictions and incoherencies. The "hippies" wanted to be free and Communistic at the same time. Both "Anything Goes" and "One, One World, One Everything". The "law and order" conservatives opposed socialism, Communism, and collectivism in certain areas, but advocated it in other areas. Both opposing "One, One World, One Everything" and "Onr Way, Only One Way". It's still so today. E.g.,, an interesting blogger with whom you may be acquainted, one Clayton Cramer, opposes gun control but advocates "sodomy" laws. An insuperable contradiction, as is the contradiction on the other side. Big Brother doesn't belong in your bedroom, and he certainly doesn't belong in your dresser drawer!

But the difference goes much further than laws and the scope of government, which is only derivative from a more fundamental moral and spiritual issue. Ayn Rand, like Camille Paglia, extolled sex as a high value, an end itself, an ecstatic celebration of one's self and of one's loved one's self. Santorum, Bork, and others like them, and also the Communists, condemn sex as a sin unless it's purely to breed more slaves for church or state. So, even apart from laws advocated, the fundamental moral premises of the two are at opposite poles. Santorum, etc., like the Communists and like the Nazis, condemn "deviant lifestyles". Ayn Rand, like Camille Paglia, like Friedrich Nietzsche, extolled the individual ego, the courage to dare to be different, to stand alone, apart from, and above the herd, to be passionate in defense of his or her values, as the fountainhead of all values. They are on diametrically opposite sides -- and yet they are both on "the Right". That is precisely why a 2-dimensional spectrum is necessary!

And, so, what of the other dimension, the "Left-Right" dimension? What, we asked, was the tie-in between hippies and Commies? What did Ayn Rand and Rev. Billy James Hargis have in common? It boiled down to one word: style.

Communists and hippies both believed in "One, One, One World, One Everything". They both advocated "peace" and "equality". A young Birchite friend of mine, David Staino, once diagnosed the 2 false premises of the Left: "accidentalism" and "blurrism". "Accidentalism": everything happens by accident, randomly or haphzardly, there is, on the one side, no Divine Creation, on the other side, no Communist Conspiracy. "Blurrism": everything is relative, there are no absolutes, there are no blacks or whites, only shades of gray, there is no difference between one thing and another, there is no difference between Divine Creation and a Communist Conspiracy. Because of this "blurrism", this "fuzziness", this "softness", about everything, hippies, like Buddhists, liked being "loose" and "cool" and "mellow".

The Right opposes that. To a Rightist, there is a Divine Creation and there is a Communist Conspiracy and there is an infinite difference between the two, there are absolutes, blacks and whites, good and evil, good and bad, right and wrong, noble and base, sacred and profane, and there is free will, choice, purpose, design. Inequalities, hierarchies, differences, oppositions, dualities, conflicts, war -- all of these are fundamental to the very essence of all existence. That is the essence of the Right-Wing Weltanschauung. Because the Rightist sees sharp differences and antagonisms between opposing values, he or she is passionate in defense of his or her values. And this is true all across the Right-Wing spectrum, from Camille Paglia to Ayn Rand to Rev. Dr. Billy James Hargis to Rev. Fred Phelps. Rightists tend, therefore, to be "hard-liners", "hot under the collar", "tight", "uptight", and "square", e.g., President Nixon, the John Birch Society, Ayn Rand. Right-Wingers tend to think and write dualistically. Here are some examples of such dualisms:

"All that which proceeds from man's independent ego is the good. All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is the evil."
-Howard Roark
-Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

"Man needs God, but Communism is atheistic. Man wants to be free, but Communism enslaves him. Man cherishes his individuality, but Communism collectivizes him."
-Richard Nixon, quoted in The Nixon Theology

"With his death and in his death, the battle lines were drawn, in a struggle from which either Communism or Christian-style civilization must emerge, the one completely triumphant, the other completely destroyed."
Robert Welch, The Life of John Birch

"I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
William F. Buckley, God and Man at Yale

"We have the weapons. All we need is the will. All that is required is public officials who will honor Americans rather than Communists, the citizen rather than the criminal, the lawful rather than the lawless, decency rather than pornography, God rather than atheism."
-Phyllis Schlafly, The Betrayers

"If sin consists in disobedience and rebellion, and if these are nothing but disorder, and disorder nothing but evil, then it follows that evil, disorder, rebellion, disobedience, and sin are absolutely identical -- just as good, order, submission, and obedience are things presenting a perfect resemblance....The rebellion of the first angel was the first disorder, the first evil, and the first sin."
-Don Juan Donoso Cortes, Essay on Catholicism, Authority, and Order

Whether or not you agree with these statements or any part of them, and I myself have some strong disagreements with at least parts of these last two -- as you can see, the last directly contradicts the first -- you have just got to admit that each and every one of them has style. Each one lays out crystal-clear alternatives and demands that you take a stand, one way or the other. No compromise is tolerated. The battle lines are clearly drawn. They are all totally opposed to Communism, which both blurs and suppresses all differences. They all uphold differences, hierarchies, absolute values. As Smith loved to say, they all have "pizzazz"!

Right now, along with writing this post, I've been re-reading a book, Architects of Fear by George Johnson, on the history of conspiracy theories, mostly on the Right. The author is a liberal, a relativist, who doesn't believe in absolutes, sees conservatives as paranoid and unable to accept the complexities of this modern world, but it is precisely the way he describes his opponents on the Right that makes me like them even more. (That's the way it is with all liberal writers.) His description of Lyndon LaRouche's ideology is quite fascinating. LaRouche sees the world as divided between Platonists and Aristoteleans, which LaRouche sees as idealists or absolutists vs. empiricists or relativists, and LaRouche sides with the Platonists. Those LaRouche sees as fellow Platonists include:
Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig von Beethoven, William Shakespeare, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Reimann, Georg Kantor, Edwin Schroedinger, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Gioseffe Zarlino, and Jesus Christ.
Those LaRouche sees as his Aristotelean foes include:
Averell Harriman, Henry Kissinger, the Rockefellers, Ken Kesey, the Beatles, Menachem Begin, the Ayatollah Khomenei, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, Adolf Hitler, Niels Bohr, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, John Locke, Bishop Berkeley, Jeremy Bentham, Voltaire, and Claudio Monteverdi.

The style of such a dualism has always fascinated me. As you may know, Ayn Rand saw it the other way around: Aristotle was the champion of man, man's life on this earth which is his to conquer, and man's luminous mind, while Plato was a mystic trapped in the mists and pointing toward the muck. But both Rand and LaRouche believed in absolute values and opposed all that which tended to relativize the absolute, everything "soft", "gooey", or "hippie". That reminds me of a dualism between "prickle" vs. "goo" that ties in with all this.

Two more quotes illustrate the style, indeed, the essence of the style of the Right. One of my favorite movies is Dr. Strangelove. It's an anti-anti-Communist movie designed to portray anti-Communists as berzerk, omnicidal maniacs, but, inadvertently, it shows, incontrovertibly and Peikoff-obviously, that anti-Communists have, have always had, and always will have, superior style. The protagonist, General Jack D. Ripper, had this to say about where he stood:

"I cannot stand by and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the International Communist Conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

His secret code for his bombers was an anagram of "P.O.E.", the Purity Of Essence of our precious bodily fluids. Which ties in with another quote, from a Christian Platonist writing in the 1940s, Richard Weaver, who wrote:

"To be a true conservative is to see the universe as a paradigm of essences, to which the phenomena of the world are in a sort of continuing approximation."

Purity Of Essence. Paradigm Of Essences. Profound. The style of it all!

Anyway, all of this led to a spectrum with 2 dimensions, and therefore, 4 quadrants, which we called "Commie Land", "Hippie Land", "The Land of Law and Order", and "The Land of Ayn Rand". "Commie Land", more than any other, stresses "One, One World, One Everything". "Hippie Land", more than any other, stresses "Anything Goes". "The Land of Law and Order", more than any other, stresses "One Way, Only One Way". "The Land of Ayn Rand", more than any other, opposes "One, One World, One Everything". Or, alternatively, those tendencies define the poles of the 2 dimensions. One dimension, the Left-Right dimension, is that of blurring vs. sharpening and even glorifying differences. In other words, "One, One World, One Everything" vs. opposing that. The other dimension, the vertical dimension, is that of suppressing vs. legalizing or even glorifying the different. In other words, "One Way, Only One Way" vs. "Anything Goes".

Smith drew out this spectrum, and we collected quotes from various books to illustrate the styles of each of the 4 quadrants. We talked about making a board game out of it. We would call it "Where Do You Stand?" That has style! We even colloquially named our spectrum "Smitty'n'Andy". The Smith-Anderson spectrum. I have thought about this spectrum ever since. Ever since then, it has been the spectrum I use more than any other. I always find myself locating ideologies, ideologues, characters, etc., as to where they stand on this spectrum. I have developed endless variations on this spectrum, and have tied it in with as many other spectra as possible. I think I'll close this post on this note. Next: "Smitty'n'Andy" and Murray S. Davis's triadic tribadic spectrum. After that: A circular spectrum that I created recently that ties in with "Smitty'n'Andy" and with a profound observation by Ayn Rand. After that: "Smitty'n'Andy" in 3 dimensions.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Sun, 06 Feb 2005
Spectrumology 7: deeper still.... ....and higher

So far, I've only been building up to this point. I want now to explore some 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional spectra which delve more into the psychological, philosophical, religious, aesthetic, spiritual bases, the styles, of spectrumology. To begin with, one George Hammond once wrote a book, The Origin of the Cross, in which he argued that the human mind is structured on a four-fold pattern symbolized by the Cross, as well as a triadic structure. He created a 2-dimensional spectrum tying in Christian theology (the 4 Gospels, the Trinity), our American form of government (the 2 Houses of Congress + the 2 dominant political parties, the 3 branches of government), and Freudian psychology, plus an assortment of other things. Extremely evocative and profound

From that, I will now present you with what is one of my favorite spectrums on the Web, the OICU2/AFC spectrum. This spectrum starts out with an analysis very similar to the spectra I described in my first post in this saga. It is the Socialist vs. Anarchist dimension, the dimension of Individual Freedom. Another dimension complements this one, i.e., the Liberal vs. Conservative dimension, the dimension of Individual Responsibility. Socialist means more and ever more government, more taxes, Communism, Nazism, Fascism. Anarchist means less government or no government at all, no taxes, no law. Liberal means progressive, permissive, self-indulgent, less religious. Conservative means tradition-bound, strict, self-disciplined, more religious. Thus, we have Liberal Socialists, Conservative Socialists, Liberal Anarchists, Conservative Anarchists. This spectrum has fascinated me ever since I first laid eyes on it some years ago, I often use it, particularly when thinking about my characters. Many tie-ins.... The style of it all....

Another favorite spectrum which I very often use and think about all the time, which I think is my favorite of all of those I have found on the Web, is the Pournelle Axes. Here is a more colorful, perhaps even clearer, representation of Dr. Jerry Pournelle's fascinating spectrum. The first dimension is Anarchist vs. Statist, from the state as the ultimate evil to state-worship. The second dimension is Rationalist vs. Irrationalist, from reason enthroned to the enthronement of the irrational. Welfare Liberals, Socialists, and Communists all believe that social problems can be solved through rational government planning. Conservatives, Fascists, and Nazis distrust reason but venerate the state as the embodiment of non-rational or super-rational values, traditions, or forces. Ayn Rand, and Objectivists and Libertarians inspired by her, like Max Stirner earlier, believe that individuals can and must solve their own problems and create their own values using their own reason, unobstructed by God or government. Other Anarchists, and the "Hippies", distrust both reason and all authority of any kind, preferring mystical experience and chaos as an end in itself.

Jim Baen wrote a most interesting postscript to Pournelle's main essay. He wrote:

"Note also the odd sympathy and support between the diagonally facing quadrants, as opposed to the antipathy between contiguous ones-at first blush diagonals would seem to make natural enemies, yet artists, intuitive by definition and anti-statist almost by definition, yearn for a world where true art is replaced by Socialist Realism-while libertarians provide the theoretical groundwork for right-wing dictatorships! Odd, very odd."

Indeed. Why do professed "anarchists" admire Communist regimes? Why do professed "anarchists" or "libertarians" defend the Confederacy or even Nazi Germany (by joining the Holocaust deniers)? Toward the center of this spectrum, there is a very close affinity between moderate Hayekian libertarians and moderate Burkean conservatives, as both share the empirical "constrained vision" described by Thomas Sowell, distrusting the extremes both of rationalism and of irrationalism. The antagonisms are equally paradoxical in the light of this. Conservatives align with libertarians in order to oppose the welfare state, socialism, and Communism. Communists denounce both libertarians and conservatives as "fascists", and Nazis denounced "Jewish Bolshevists". Conservatives invoke "law and order" against the "hippies", who hate the "fascists". Liberal friends of the "hippies" vote to increase the welfare state. Hmmm....

The diagonal axis from Rationalist Statists to Irrational Anarchists is what, on most 1-dimensional spectra, is called "the Left", which shows again the ambiguity of the term. The diagonal axis from Rationalist Anarchists to Irrational Statists is what, on most 1-dimensional spectra, is called "the Right", which shows again the ambiguity of the term. What is the tie-in or tie-ins between these diametrically opposite quadrants? Hmmm.... Camille Paglia identifies with the "sex, drugs, 'n' rock'n'roll" Dionysian "counter-culture" of the late 1960s, has traditionally voted Democratic, but also strongly critiques the shallowness and follies of both of these quadrants, and strongly admires Friedrich Nietzsche and also both Ayn Rand and Oswald Spengler, both of whom were inspired by Nietzsche. Ayn Rand, as shown above, embodied the Rationalist Anti-Statist, glorified the Producer and despised "Attila" and "the Witch Doctor". Oswald Spengler, a quintessential ultra-Conservative, who was clearly an Irrationalist Statist, despised the modern urban rationalist and glorified the 2 Primal Estates, the Warrior and the Priest. Their styles. As I, too, am essentially a Nietzschean with both a strongly Randian preference for the Individual over any state and a strongly Spenglerian preference for myth over reason, I would be in the Irrationalist Anarchist quadrant. A "square hippie"?

Rand was at least partly an exception to the paradoxical pattern described here. She hated Communism, yet could portray a Communist sympathetically in her first novel We the Living. She saw the New Deal liberals as at least attempting to be rational in their thinking. But she loathed the "hippies", and she was constantly disgusted by conservatives, especially the more religious. In another quadrant of this spectrum, Charles Reich, in his The Greening of America, which was wildly popular for a brief time in the early 1970s, extolled the "hippies" as the emerging "Consciousness III", saw some virtues in the old-style pre-New Deal America ("Consciousness I"), but detested the soulless, mechanized, bureaucratized world created by "Consciousness II", the rational planners. Some Birchers, such as Alan Stang, saw the "hippies" as potentially fellow rebels against the Establishment.

For some reason not identified at all here, both of the opposing "Left" quadrants, the Rationalist Statists and the Irrationalist Anarchists, seem to tend toward equality, while both of the opposing "Right" quadrants, the Rationalist Anarchists and the Irrationalist Statists, seem to like inequalities or hierarchies. This ties in with Bobbio's and Laponce's spectra. Both Rationalist quadrants seem to correspond to Cofrancesco's Classic ideologies, while both Irrationalist quadrants seem to correspond to Cofrancesco's Romantic ideologies. Many, many tie-ins here.... The style of it all....

Tying in with that is a spectrum by my friend Jeanine Ring. An extremely interesting typology: The "Old High Culture" stressing Apollonian aristocratic virtues of pride, power, and honor. The "Old Low Culture" stressing Dionysian and democratic virtues of eros, inspiration, and empathy. The "Converted Low Culture" stressing original Christian democratic virtues of faith, hope, charity, and self-sacrifice. The "Converted High Culture" stressing Calvinistic virtues of duty, propriety, and chastity. These corresponding to the modern Libertarian Right, Libertarian Left, Authoritarian Left, and Authoritarian Right, respectively. This definitely ties in with the Pournelle spectrum in many ways, and also with Dr. Kelley Ross's spectrum, which I described in my last post here. Many tie-ins.... The style Myself, I definitely prefer the Old High Culture, with certain elements of the Dionysian Old Low Culture as well, and have also a strong affinity for the style of the Medieval Catholic Church.

My brother, David Matthew Anderson, once came up with a spectrum for me when he suggested 2 possible axes, Optimistic vs. Pessimistic, and Freedom vs. Regimentation. I've often thought about that....

Another very good friend of mine, whom I have known since first grade in 1961, Robin Georg Olsen, created a spectrum which I often think about. One dimension is that of Left and Right, which working definitions he once gave as "progressive, new, different" vs. "traditional, proven, stable". The other dimension is that of "Grass-roots" (populist, democratic) vs. "Leadership" (elitist, aristocratic). I mentioned this spectrum in an earlier post on the recent spectrumological shift of the symbolisms of the colors Red and Blue. Grass-roots Left would be typified by the sansculottes of the French Revolution, the old farmer-labor movements of the early and middle 20th century, Eugene V. Debs, the massive support for FDR and Truman. Leadership Left would be typified by the philosophes of the French Revolution, George Bernard Shaw, today's "parlor pinks", "limousine liberals", "Jet Set", or the Hollywood Left. Grass-roots Right would be typified by the Royalist peasants at Valmy, G. K. Chesterton, today's "hard hats", "Red Staters", Spiro Agnew, "Pitchfork Pat" Buchanan. Leadership Right would be typified by the First and Second Estates of the Ancien Regime, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacob Burkhardt, Peter Viereck. As I noted, the Right in America has become ever more populist, while the Left is, or is perceived as being, ever more elitist. As for myself, ever since 9/11/2001, I have been moving, or the Left has been pushing me, further and further to the Right, conservative, reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and ever since 6/26/2003, I have become ever more elitist, aristocratic, anti-democratic.

An even more significant spectrum that Robin Georg Olsen created, and which we have often discussed, is theological, pertaining to the essence of the Deity or Deities. It, too, is a Cross-shaped 4-fold spectrum of the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son (the Christ), God the Daughter (the Holy Spririt), the Virgin Mother of God (the Queen of Heaven). This Holy Quaternity describes not only the Christian God and Goddess, but has parallels in other mythologies, too. Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma worship these Deities. Wicked Wanda is an atheist. I will discuss my characters and their spectrums in later posts....

Going back to my adventures in spectrumology in the 1970s, one of the most interesting things I have ever read was a symposium on spectrumology in the September 1976 Commentary magazine entitled "What Is A Liberal? Who Is A Conservative?" Many, many interesting essays by a wide spectrum of intellectuals. But the one I'm thinking of right now is one by Paul H. Weaver, in which he set out a triangular spectrum of Left, Liberal, Right ideologies, and "radical" and "conservative" ways of approaching or implementing ideologies. The "What" bifurcated" by the "How", in other words. The Left stands for revolution, equality, and secularism. The Right stands for tradition, hierarchy, and religion. The Liberal stands for individual freedom, equality under the law, and freedom of religion. As Weaver defined it, the conservative, who may be any or all of these three, approaches things in a pragmatic, relativistic way, compromising, and stressing the concrete and particular. The radical, by contrast, who also may be any or all of these three, approches things in a dogmatic, doctrinaire, principled way, stressing abstract universals and absolutes. Weaver argued that the contemporary American "Left" is, in reality, a mixture of conservative Leftism, conservative Liberalism, and conservative Rightism, while the contemporary American "Right" is, in reality, a mixture of radical Rightism and radical Liberalism. Interesting....

This idea of a triangular spectrum is one of I have often thought about. I note that Ayn Rand and her Objectivists tend to think in triadic spectra. In an essay on We the Living in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, Valerie Loiret-Prunet notes how the number 3, which she argues is a particularly feminine number, recurs in Rand's writing, both fictional and non-fictional. Rand's typology of Attila (force), the Witch Doctor (faith), the Producer (reason). Her typology of theories of value as subjectivist, intrinsicist, Objectivist. Leonard Peikoff's forthcoming "DIM [Disintigration, Integration, Misintegration] Hypothesis". David Kelley's spectrum of pre-Enlightenment, Enlightenment, Post-Enlightenment. Many others.

I myself once thought up a spectrum of Communist, Fascist, Anarchist, which I tied in with a parallel spectrum in psychology of Environmentalist (environmental determinist), Hereditarian (genetic determinist), Volitionist (free will). Parallel to these I had an artistic spectrum of Realist, Classicist, Romanticist. And I tied all of these in with Professor Murray S. Davis's sexual-ideological spectrum of Naturalist, Jehovanist, Gnostic. I will write more about that spectrum of sexual ideologies in my next post. Thus, a 3-fold typology of: Communist-Environmentalist-Realist-Naturalist, Fascist-Hereditarian-Classicist-Jehovanist, Anarchist-Volitionist-Romanticist-Gnostic.

A. Lawrence Chickering, in his book Beyond Left and Right, discussed a spectrum of Order Left, Freedom Right, Freedom Left, Order Right, that I have often thought about, plus a polarity of "core" (traditional) and "marginal" (exotic) values or styles.

In an interesting essay I read in an anthology on the Nolan spectrum, Howard Katz saw such a 4-fold spectrum emerging from a split within classic Liberalism brought about by "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" Statists. As he explained it, the oid Conservatives were for "Throne and Altar", absolute monarchy, elitism, hierarchy, authority, law and order, belief that man is basically bad and needs to be controlled, a strong military, war and glorification of war. They were also for unlimited government and fiat money. The original Liberals were for the opposites, for liberty, equality, fraternity, peace, free trade, universal prosperity, benevolence, and a belief that people are basically good and should be free. They were also for limited government and a gold standard. But, then, beginning in the 19th century, certain of the more intellectual of the old authoritarians got together and dressed up their Statism in "modern, progressive"-sounding language. They promoted government controls, socialism, gun control, and One-World government, all in the name of peace and equality. They split off the Liberals into 2 opposing camps, those who held to the old Classical Liberal principles of individual liberty and strictly limited government vs. those who were convinced that socialism or a welfare state would be more benevolent for workers, farmers, and the poor. The old Conservatives distrusted the new "Progressive" Statists, even though both were equally authoritarian. The old libertarian Liberals, increasingly being called and even calling themselves "Conservatives", joined with the old authoritarian Conservatives to oppose socialism. The humanitarian Liberals joined with the "Progressive" Statists to oppose the old Conservatives and champion the poor and the persecuted. In actuality, both authoritarians are on the same side, though they speak different languages. And the humanitarians and the libertarians are on the same side, though they speak different languages. In order to heal the split within true Liberalism and revive it once again, it is necessary to get both sides to realize that liberty and benevolence are not opposed. An interesting theory. An interesting spectrum of it....

In 1968, Samuel Brittan wrote a book Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma. I read about that book in one of the volumes of the series From Radical Left to Extreme Right, descriptions of a vast number of ideological periodicals of all stripes, extremely interesting. I saw that collection in the library of Monmouth's Oregon College of Education (now Western Oregon University) in the early 1970s. I used to live in that library, spend my days there, for many years, decades. So many of my favorite books I discovered there. So many, many, many, many good books! Anyway, when I read about Brittan's book, I longed from then on to get hold of a copy of it and see his spectrum. That was one of my highest ambitions for many decades. I finally did, I purchased it on-line in 2000 from Barnes & Noble under "Used and Rare" books, and, at the same time, I also got the complete set of From Radical Left to Extreme Right.

Anyway!, Brittan outlined a 3-dimensional spectrum with the following axes: 1) Liberal vs. Authoritarian, 2) Egalitarian vs. Elitist, 3) Radical vs. Orthodox. Liberal, or Libertarian, or Individualist vs. Authoritarian is the dimension of individual freedom, e.g., legalization of homosexuality, abortion, etc., vs. censorship, drug laws, socialism, etc.. Egalitarian vs. Elitist is the dimension of equality vs. inequality, hierarchy, or elitism, which also relates to socialism vs. capitalism, and also to pre-capitalist hierarchies. Radical vs. Orthodox or Conservative is the dimension of change vs. continuity, modernity vs. tradition, and also secularism or skepticism vs. religiousness. There is also a separate pacifist vs. militarist dimension, and several other possible dimensions of ideology and attitude. Many tie-ins....

One very old spectrum that Brittan discusses is that created by British psychologist Hans J. Eysenck in the 1950s. To the traditional Left-Right or Radical-Conservative (largely socialist vs. capitalist) dimension, Eysenck added a dimension of Tough-Minded vs. Tender-Minded, drawn from William James's typology, which Eysenck correlated with extrovert vs. introvert. The most Tender-Minded tended to be Liberal, while the most Tough-Minded tended to be Communist or Fascist, those in between Socialist or Conservative.. Tender-Mindedness on the Left meant essentially pacifistic attitudes, opposition to capital punishment, etc.. Tough-Mindedness on the Left meant an irreligious or skeptical attitude, sexual freedom, support for abortion, etc.. Tough-Mindedness on the Right meant a warlike attitude, support for capital and corporal punishment, belief in racial superiority, etc.. Tender-Mindedness on the Right meant deep religiousness, opposition to abortion, restrictive sexual morality, support for censorship, etc.. I often think of this Tough vs. Tender dimension when I encounter people who are consistently pro-life or, conversely, who support both capital punishment and abortion. A very interesting spectrum.

William Irwin Thompson, in his At the Edge of History, outlined a theory of history as progressing or branching out in 4 stages, and with it, a spectrum, based on what he saw as 4 basic recurring human types. In the original prehistoric or savage tribe, the 4 types are simply the beautiful Hunter, the authoritative Headman, the wise Shaman, the ugly mocking Clown.
With the creation of agricultural-based civilization, these branch out into Military, State, Religion, Art. The Military branches into 4 corresponding types: Foot Soldier (Ajax), Commander (Agamemnon), Strategist (Odysseus), Warrior-Hero (Achilles). The State branches into 4 corresponding types: General, King, High Priest, Apologist. Religion branches into 4 corresponding types: Scribe, Bishop, Theologian, Mystic. Art branches into 4 corresponding types: Artisan, Publicist (Phidias), Celebrant (Aeschylus), Satirist-Critic (Aristophanes).
With the creation of industrial-based civilization, the Military becomes Industry, the State becomes Government, Religion becomes Education, Art becomes the Media. The 4 types in Industry are: Workers, Executives, Inventors, Entrepreneurs. The 4 types in Government are: Civil Servants, Executives, Political Scientists, Propagandists-Newsmen. The 4 types in Education are: Students, Administrators, Scientists-Scholars, Teachers. The 4 types in the Media are: Technicians, Executives, Artists, Entertainers-Personalities.
The scientific-planetary civilization of the future will recapitulate all four stages corresponding to each of the 4 types. The Technicians will divide themselves into (ancient-medieval style): Military-Athletic, Local Administrators, Religion, Art. The Managers will divide themselves into (modern style): Technicians (Industry), Managers (Government), Scientists (Educators), Critics (Media). The Scientists will divide themselves into (ultra-modern style): Technologists, Coordinators (Oppenheimer), Theoreticians (Heisenberg), Pythagoreans-Visionaries (Einstein). The Critics will divide themselves into (prehistoric style): Hero of Body, Charismatic leader (Headman), Students-Academics (Shaman), Clown.

Corresponding to the 4 types are 4 ideological orientations. The military-industrial workers, descendants of the Hunter, are Reactionaries. The managers of industry and government, descendants of the Headman, are Conservatives. The academics, descendants of the Shaman, are Liberals. The students and critics, descendants of the Clown, are Radicals. Thompson describes them thus:

"The liberals are for reason and free speech; they are also for social engineering and the adjustment of the individual to the technological society through the aid of behavioral therapy. Their vision is of a cosmic void ennobled by the presence of so many liberal Ph.D.'s. When one joins the liberals, he discovers he has assented to more than he wishes. If he tries to assert his own peculiar combination of opposites, he finds himself without the association. Nevertheless, this tenuous association with the liberals is enough to alienate the radicals. If he goes over with the radicals, he finds a politics of emotion which is a warm antidote to behavioral engineering and an antidote to reason as well. A stay with the radicals, with their masochistic lust for punishment, is likely to set him thinking in terms of Burke's and Blake's criticism of tyrants and rebels. If he moves over to the conservatives, he finds people who are uninterested in Burke or Blake, but very interested in the empire of capitalism. The conservatives turn out to be little different than the Establishment liberals of the new technocracy.
"If this encounter sets him into a rage against cabals and elites and into fantasies of yeoman America, he will find that the good common people are yelling against miscegenation and screaming for capital punishment and force as resolutions of all problems foreign and domestic...."

In his typology, the Reactionary Hunter is Thanatos, the Conservative Headman is Agape, the Liberal Shaman is Logos, the Radical Clown is Eros. Interesting about it all.... My friend Robin Georg Olsen introduced me to a very similar typology some years ago which we often discuss: Warrior, King, Magician, Lover. Extremely interesting.... Much to think about here....

Andrew Greeley created a spectrum with 2 dimensions: 1) a belief that people are basically perfectible (Socialists and Anarchists) vs. a belief in Original Sin (Capitalists and Catholics), 2) a preference for modern, industrial, centralized, Gesselschaftliche, Protestant-style civilization (Socialists and Capitalists) vs. a preference for pre-modern, agrarian, decentralized, Gemeinschaftliche, Catholic-style culture (Anarchists and Catholics). Interesting also....

I can't remember where, but in some book I was reading in the library many years ago, I saw a reference to a spectrumological typology that I have thought about ever since. The author wrote of the following associations: Radical-Mechanist-Tragic, Liberal-Contextualist-Satiric, Conservative-Organicist-Comic, Anarchist-Formalist-Romantic. The style of that!....

The style of all of it! The style of each and every one of these spectrums, and of all of these spectrums put together. So many tie-ins.... I think I'll close this post on this note. I'm still just building up, though. In my next post, I will discuss some extremely important spectrums. Coming up: the "Smitty'n'Andy" spectrum! Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Sat, 05 Feb 2005
VI of my spectrumology: ....and deeper still: spectra beyond 1 dimension

Hokay! So far, we've seen a number of possible and conflicting definitions of what "Left" and "Right" mean as opposing ideological tendencies or orientations on a spectrum. We've seen spectra that look like these:

anarchist________________anarchist

communist________________anarchist

anarchist________________fascist

communist________________fascist

Hmmm.... Here I find a significant difference between ideological spectrumology and the spectrumology of colors. In discussing colors, some define "red" as a magenta (FF00FF), a subtractive primary. Many others define "red" as an orangish-red (FF0000), an additive primary. Others still, such as Ellen Marx, define "red" as somewhere in between (e.g., FF0066). I lean toward the third myself. But, and this is the point, nobody defines "red" as an orange or violet, still less as a blue, green, or cyan. And, yet that last seems to happen all the time in discussing ideologies! Is the Left "Anything Goes" or "One, One World, One Everything"? Is the Right "One Way, Only One Way" or opposing "One, One World, One Everything"? And many other such questions....

In my last post on spectrums, I discussed a number of proposed definitions by various authors, various polarities with rather evocative names:

nurturing________________strict

soft________________________hard

unconstrained________constrained

humanist________________normative

liberation________________tradition

These seem to spell something more coherent, a sort of "Yin-Yang" polarity. As it looks to me, the whole thing crystallizes with J. A. Laponce's spatio-temporal polarities:

horizontal________________vertical

secular____________________sacred

egalitarian__________hierarchical

discontinuous________continuous

We're working toward some kind of working definition of "Left" and "Right". These last definitely tie in with their original meanings during those tempestuous meetings of L'Etat Generale in 1789: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" vs. "Throne and Altar". But we need to look deeper still. You've probably noticed that every one of these spectra has only one (1) dimension, a single horizontal line from left to right. We really need another dimension, or at least I sure do. A 3-dimensional spectrum is hard to represent visually on a 2-dimensional screen, and until I figure out some things here, I won't even be able to draw you a 2-dimensional spectrum. So, you'll have to rely on my verbal descriptions and links for the present. As that bus driver said: Bear with me until we get squared away.

At the same time I ran into that quiz I showed you, Gary Allen's government spectrum, the MAD spectrum of styles, and Silvan Tomkins's psychological-philosophical spectrum, another spectrum came into my view. For, around that time, in the early 1970s, under the fascinating reign of President Nixon, the libertarian movement, and its Libertarian Party, were coming into being, inspired largely by Ayn Rand, and largely in reaction against what they saw as the unforgivably socialist policies of President Nixon and the authoritarian tendencies of conservatives like William F. Buckley and the John Birch Society. They wanted to break away from the 1-dimensional dichotomy of "Left" and "Right", being opposed to the statist tendencies of both and definitely not "middle of the road" either. In 1971, David Nolan thought about this whole issue of a spectrum and decided that he needed a 2-dimensional spectrum. He thought of two axes:

socialism________capitalism (maximum economic freedom)

This axis pertains, as you can see, to economic issues, issues involving property, money, production, free enterprise, etc.. These are the freedoms conservatives tend to defend, while today's liberals (since the New Deal) tend to favor socialism, income redistribution, or government controls over economics. But there is also a non-economic dimension of freedom which has just got to be just as important:

maximum personal freedom________"law and order"

Here we see the opposite tendency at work. Liberals, from John Stuart Mill to the ACLU, have tended to defend individual freedoms in areas like religion, free speech, sexuality, etc., while authoritarian conservatives from de Maistre to Robert Bork, have demanded censorship, "sodomy" laws, drug laws, etc., in the name of "morality" and "law and order".

In other words, both of today's liberals and conservatives are caught in a fatal contradiction. How can liberals defend freedom of the press if they want the government to be able to ration paper, ink, and access to the Internet or other media in the name of "fair distribution"? How can conservatives defend property rights if they want the police to be able to raid your home if you are suspected of "deviant" sexual relations? Libertarians, and libertarian-inclined liberals and conservatives, want to get away from that nonsense, and so Nolan formed these two axes into a shape which is probably familiar to you, a cross or an "X", with libertarians orthogonal to both conventional liberals and conservatives, for less government and more individual freedom in both economic and non-economic realms, and with consistent totalitarians like Mao or Hitler, wanting total government control over everything, at the opposite end.

You've very likely seen this Nolan spectrum. It's the most popular 2-dimensional spectrum and it's all over the Web. You've very likely seen this World's Smallest Political Quiz. It's very popular and I've seen it linked to on quite a few sites. This philosopher, Dr. Kelley Ross, has a fascinating and profound discussion of the philosophical, psychological, and aesthetic ramifications of the Nolan spectrum, in conjunction with the Myers-Briggs psychological typology, which is the one I myself most often use these days, especially for my characters. I strongly urge you to read his essay. The Epimethean, Promethean, Dionysian, and Apollonian types correspond to the four quadrants in a most interesting way. His whole site is terrific, lots and lots of good stuff. Much to ponder.

Another very popular 2-dimensional spectrum is the Political Compass. You've very likely seen it. I see this one referred to all over the Web, too, perhaps even more than the Nolan spectrum, in comments on blogs and elsewhere. I love the chart showing where various composers fall on this spectrum. The color symbolisms are interesting. So is their reading list. Taking their quiz again, I found myself scoring as:
Economic Left/Right: 6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79
In other words, I'm in the Libertarian Right quadrant with Rand, Hayek, and others. On this spectrum, "Left" and "Right" are defined in economic terms, mainly as to whether or not you strongly dislike commerce and large corporations, things like Perrier water. The non-economic Libertarian-Authoritarian dimension is defined more ambiguously, questions about patriotism, criminal punishment, child raising, religion, astrology, modern art, as well as censorship and sexual freedom. Many of the questions are taken from T. W. Adorno's controversial The Authoritarian Personality, psychological surveys, particularly the infamous "F Scale" ["F" for Fascism], taken in the 1950s supposed to show that a lot of people have "latent fascist" tendencies based on their views on astrology, strong vs. weak people, modern art, cleanliness, racism and anti-Semitism, politico-economic conservatism, religious beliefs, and a whole bunch of other things. Conservatives such as Frank S. Meyer have questioned the whole thing as tendentious, designed to make conservatives look like Nazis. Adorno was a Freudian Marxist of the Frankfurt School, which was and is extremely influential on the Left.

A 3-dimensional spectrum that has two economic dimensions is the Vosem Chart. The 3 axes of this spectrum are: 1) attitudes toward personal freedoms and non-economic issues, 2) attitudes toward the welfare state or government in economics, and 3) attitudes toward business and corporations. It is certainly possible to dislike Big Business while fearing Big Government even more. Thus, this spectrum has 8 basic positions. Maoists and other such totalitarians want total government control and collectivization of everything. Authoritarians, such as Mussolini's fascist regime, allow business some scope of freedom. New Deal and quasi-Marxist liberals denounce "economic royalists" and "malefactors of great wealth", and urge progressive taxation of the rich and more welfare for the poor. Today's "neoliberals" such as President Clinton, or, in England, Tony Blair's New Labour party, speak rather of "business-government partnerships" in a mixed economy. Most American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh dislike Big Government in the form of the welfare state but tend to admire Big Business. "Paleo-conservatives" such as Pat Buchanan condemn Wall Street as a corrupt, rootless, enemy of Main Street and praise the patriotism of the traditional farmer and blue-collar worker. Libertarians have tended to admire the entrepreneurs of capitalism, but anarcho-syndicalists rebel against both Big Government and Big Business. I myself was closer to that last position prior to 9/11/2001, but I have since found that those who have the most raging hostility against commerce and industry usually are hostile to the military as well and to our ongoing War Against the Terror Masters.

This spectrum here is like the Nolan spectrum, but arranged according to forms of government, rule by majority vs. rule by minority, as well as degrees of government control. A libertarian democracy has its anti-democratic counterpart in a libertarian dictatorship or oligarchy, such as was in many ways the United States under our first 6 Presidents or perhaps Florence under the Medici. Democratic conservatism has its anti-democratic counterpart in a Rightist dictatorship or theocracy. Democratic socialism has its anti-democratic counterpart in Bolshevism. Democratic grass-roots communitarianism has its counterpart in a fascist or Nazi dictatorship. The color symbolisms of this spectrum are interesting.

Here is another interesting variant on that type of spectrum. The author uses 2 dimensions: Economic Liberal vs. Economic Conservative, Moral LIberal vs. Moral Conservative. His descriptions are interesting, particularly of the Conservative. The style. The color symbolisms are interesting, too.

Every one of these spectra that I have described in this post has an economic dimension. I must say that, since 9/11/2001 and then 6/26/2003, I have moved away from thinking in terms of economics. I will return to the question of economics or economic thinking later, but in my next post I want to go deeper, to 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional spectra dealing with more fundamental spiritual issues and dimensions.

Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Thu, 03 Feb 2005
THANK YOU!!!!

A belated and big THANK YOU!!!! to Jonathan Rowe, to Jeff Soyer, to Eric Sheie, to Paul Burgess, and to Dean Esmay -- READ THEIR BLOGS, PLEASE! -- for this (and for this, which is even more important), for this, for this, for this, and for this.

I also thank everyone else who ever has, for what ever reason, seen fit to link me, or whoever will, and also everyone who has not ever thought of doing so and never will (mainly because there are millions of blogs out there and nobody can link to them all!) but who nevertheless has a blog or site worthy of my perusal.

Yes, I'm finally doing what I always wanted to do, what I love doing, i.e., blogging about ideological spectra. I will also be blogging about spectra of colors, and about my characters. I'm taking a hiatus on angry screeds for now, mainly because, as somebody once put it, as soon as you think you've scraped the bottom of the barrel, you find that it's barrels all the way down to the center of the Earth. I'm tired of writing about what's wrong with the world, at least on this blog, which is called Up With Beauty, and have finally decided to start writing about at least one thing that's right with it, i.e.: that there are so interesting many ways of arranging all the wrong-headed ideologies into a visually-gratifying chart, diagram, map, picture, or spectrum. On to the spectrums then!....

[/Prime] permanent link

Wed, 02 Feb 2005
To Ayn Rand: HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

To Ayn Rand*: HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!! And, above all, Thank You.
"May God bless you, or whoever it is who is alone to see the best, the highest possible, to human hearts"
-Paul Cameron to Howard Roark
-Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

(*nee Alyssa Rosembaum, St. Petersburg, Russia, February 2, 1905 -- what a century that was. I can only pray that, through Ayn Rand's influence in the opposite direction, the next century will be better.)

My friend Chris Matthew Sciabarra, has posted his tribute to her here. He is the greatest living scholar on Ayn Rand. Read his books Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and also Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, a spectrum of views of Ayn Rand and the whole conundrum of woman vis-a-vis man, transcending Transcendental Scientists vs. Femocrats.

Ayn Rand's first novel, We the Living, exposed the Hell the Communists created in Russia. To those who think that Rand caricatured all who disagreed with her as villains, you will never see a more sympathetic portrayal of a Communist than Andrei Taganov, a noble idealist who found out that what he had taken for the ideal was the worst of all evils. I'd like to think that I was like him when Ayn Rand brought me out of the darkness of collectivism into the colorful light of individualism.

The first fictional work I ever read of Ayn Rand was Anthem, which is Orwell's 1984, but with a different ending. A novelette rather than a novel, it is an excellent introduction to the ethics of egoism or individualism. I discovered Ayn Rand at the same time I discovered spectrums! I had first glimpsed the ideal of the Ego, of the individual self as the fountainhead of all values, through Friedrich Nietzsche, but it was in reading Ayn Rand that that ideal crystallized within me, and when I completely broke with collectivism, socialism, Communism, and every other slave philosophy.

But Anthem was only an overture to what is still my favorite by far of all of Ayn Rand's works, The Fountainhead. The characters in this novel, Howard Roark, Dominique, Gail Wynand, even Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, are on a level of mythic archetypes for me, and I often think of them as parallel to my own characters in many ways. Norma = Roark? Dawn = Dominique? Wanda = Wynand? Rev. Becker = Toohey? Hmmm.... Most interesting!.... I think about The Fountainhead all the time. I always twin The Fountainhead with Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West, two of my favorite books ever, both of which have profoundly shaped me, and both of which I re-read one after the other, with greater appreciation, in the mid-1970s. There is, in fact, an allusion to Spengler's book in this novel. The soul and style of the West. "The Ego in the Infinite".... "The total passion for the total height"....

What The Fountainhead has in depth and characterization, Atlas Shrugged has in plot structure and in sheer scope, developing the ramifications of the ethics articulated in The Fountainhead on the largest national and even global scale, showing what happens when the equivalents of Roark in every branch of art, science, and industry decide to do what Wynand did to Toohey in the end, or what happens if Roark decides to follow Dominique's advice. I intend to discuss some thoughts of mine on the paradoxical (and spectrumological) relationship of the two novels some time later. I'll just say for now: Ayn Rand was great.

In these fascinating books, The Early Ayn Rand and The Journals of Ayn Rand, you can read her earliest short stories and plays, such as Ideal, which are as interesting as her novels, perhaps more so in certain ways, and which definitely show the profound influence of Nietzsche upon her thought.

As to her non-fiction books: her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology focuses on the theory of concepts and their relationship to objective reality, seeking an alternative both to nominalism and to Platonic realism. The Virtue of Selfishness is a collection of her essays on the ethics of egoism and why values must be held as absolutes, never to be surrendered.** Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, the answer to Karl Marx, but which also contains a scathing critique of conservatism, shows the political and economic ramifications of an egoist ethics and of its opposite. That was actually the first book of Ayn Rand that I ever read, even before Anthem. At that time, I was curious as to how an anti-socialist, a capitalist, could be an idealist. She showed me how. In The Romantic Manifesto, largely a tribute to Victor Hugo, the writer she most admired, and The Art of Fiction, on how to write a good book (a book which I had better heed!), she defends the ideal and the heroic in art and literature. The Ayn Rand Letter, which came out fortnightly from 1971 to 1976, was the closest equivalent to a blog that she ever wrote. My favorite essays in that volume are "Censorship: Local and Express", "Thought Control", and "Ideas vs. Goods" and "Ideas vs. Men", all against censorship and in defense of freedom of thought. Many spectrumological observations and implications in those essays.

(**This being her 100th birthday, I must add that if a certain Southern Senator and others in government had read and heeded her analysis and condemnation of racism, "the worst and most primitive form of collectivism", we would not have the problems we have today.)

Here is The Ayn Rand Institute, founded her heir, Leonard Peikoff, who also has an extremely interesting style. He used to have a radio call-in show (much better than Rush Limbaugh!). I have some tapes from that show. I'm looking forward to his book on "The 'DIM' [Disintegration, Integration, Misintegration] Hypothesis". Of Objectivist-oriented bloggers on my blogroll (which I need to get around to updating soon!), Mark Wickens is very good. Don Watkins is currently on hiatus, but his blog is still up, you can delve through his archives, or look at his links (his blogroll jumps over to the left below where his main text ends).

I must state that I myself am not an Objectivist, as is probably obvious from your first look at my sidebar, and so I cannot claim to speak for Objectivists (who do perfectly fine speaking for themselves!), but I count Objectivists among my strongest allies. If anybody will save America and the West and your and my freedom, it will be those who take inspiration from Ayn Rand, not those who denigrate her. I'll close on this note. All I can say is, again, Thank you, Ayn Rand.

[/Prime] permanent link

Tue, 01 Feb 2005
Spectrumology V -- ....and deeper still....: some books from Lakoff to Laponce

I'm now going to get into what some writers have said about the philosophical and psychological meanings of "Left" and "Right" as ideological concepts. To begin with, it has often been remarked, as, e.g., by P. J. O'Rourke, that liberals want government to be their Mommy, i.e., give them cookies and tuck them into bed, while conservatives want government to be their Daddy, i.e., give them a good paddling when they're naughty. A liberal, George Lakoff, wrote a book based on that concept, Moral Politics. In it, he argues that each camp views the country, and even the world, in terms of the kind of family in which they grew up, and/or their ideal family. For liberals, this ideal is the Nurturing Parent (either mother or father as the sexes are believed to be equal*) who teaches empathy (the primary virtue) through loving example. For conservatives, this ideal is the Strict Father (the man is usually perceived as by nature dominant*) who teaches self-discipline and self-reliance (the primary virtues) through rewards and stringent punishments. Conservatives view the world as a jungle, full of dangers and temptations, and one must be morally strong in order to deal with these. Libertarians, who don't want the government to be their parent, are a variant on the conservative world-view, emphasizing the value of self-reliance. I must say that, speaking for myself, throughout the book, I, once again, far preferred the style of the conservative as Lakoff described him or her.

(*Once again, this reminds me of Femocrats vs. Transcendental Scientists. I must also mention that, when I was a boy, my Mama wielded the paddle just as fierecely and effectively as did my Father, who was also loving and affectionate.)

Shortly after I read Lakoff's book, I read Michael Barone's Hard America, Soft America, a historical overview of the permutations of Hard (competitive) vs. Soft (anti-competitive) tendencies in 20th century America. He concludes that we need some Softness in certain areas, or else life would be unrelievedly harsh, but that much Hardness is also essential if we are to remain strong enough even in order to protect the Softness from being crushed by Harder enemies, as we got a taste of on September 11, 2001.

The polarity is often framed as the question: Are human beings by nature basically good or basically bad? And, related to that: Is human nature basically fixed or can it be changed? Thomas Sowell wrote a seminal book based on these questions and their implications, A Conflict of Visions. In it, he outlines two competing visions or views of human nature and society which predominate in the modern West and have predominated since the beginning of the Enlightenment.

The Unconstrained vision stresses the potential perfectibility of human nature through reason. This vision is exemplified by Rousseau, Condorcet, and other French philosophes and was the guiding philosophy of the Revolution in France. It is the prevailing philosophy of most American liberals and non-Marxist or quasi-Marxist socialists and other "social engineers". Its epistemology is basically rationalist. Knowledge is the explicit, consciously articulated reasoning of a few enlightened, compassionate, progressive intellectuals, who can use their thinking to re-make man and society in their own image. Only backward, benighted, superstitious bumpkins hoodwinked by evil, greedy powers, e.g., "the military-industrial complex", stand in the way of such an ideal world.

The Constrained vision stresses the limitations of human nature, and, particularly, of human reason. This vision is exemplified by most of our Founding Fathers, especially the men who framed our Constitution. It is the prevailing philosophy of most conservatives since Burke and by most free enterprise economists since Adam Smith. Its epistemology is basically empiricist. Knowledge is the implicit, unconscious, unarticulated experience accumulated by generation upon generation since prehistory, and embodied in traditions, laws, languages, religions, and the free markets of capitalism. Any attempt to supercede all of this in order to bring about a Utopia of some kind can only result in either chaos or tyranny. They stress the idea of "unintended consequences".

I must mention that a very similar spectrum and analysis was outlined by James Burnham in his The Suicide of the West.

Both of these opposing views of human nature and society have certain premises in common. 1) Both tend to believe that human beings are, and should be, basically equal. The Unconstrained vision wants to make everybody equal in terms of wealth, grades in school, and other outcomes, using such means as progressive taxation, racial quotas, and whatever else comes to mind. The Constrained vision wants everyone to be equal before the law, to be bound by the same rules, favors a flat rate of taxation, opposes racial quotas and other forms of forced equality which only produce more inequality.
2) Both are altruistic in ethics, believing that the ideal is for everyone to sacrifice or subordinate his or her own selfish goals for the good of society as a whole. The Unconstrained vision believes that this can be accomplished through example and indoctrination, e.g., "sensitivity training". The Constrained vision believes that this is impossible, and that instead the thing to do is to work with the ineradicable selfishness of men and women using a system of rewards for good behavior, e.g., money for hard work or wise investment, and punishments for bad behavior. The Unconstrained vision praises good intentions, the Constrained vision seeks good behavior regardless of the intention.
3) Both are basically secular, Enlightenment-based visions, aimed at the improvement or preservation of society in this world. The Unconstrained vision tends to regard religion as superstition to be swept away through reason, science, and broad interpretations of the doctrine of "separation of church and state". The Constrained vision may stem from a Christian belief in Original Sin, or it may be entirely emprically based, e.g., Hume or contemporary "sociobiology". Even atheists holding a Constrained vision tend to value religion as a necessary social institution which keeps most people in line by promising Heaven for good behavior and threatening Hell for bad behavior.

Sowell names a number of influential Hybrid visions or various permutations of elements of both the Constrained and the Unconstrained visions. The liberalism of John Stuart Mill, based largely on his father's rationalist utilitarian ethics, but leavened by the Romantic conservatism of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, is one such Hybrid. Karl Marx articulated a very Unconstrained vision of a liberated future, but saw the past and present constrained by the iron laws of economic determinism and class struggle. Sowell examines Marxism separately in his Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Fascism demanded that its followers be constrained by absolute loyalty to the nation or race and its Leader, but the Leader was not to be constrained by any laws, traditions, religion, or ethics whatsoever. G. K. Chesterton, a Christian democrat, admired popular traditions, but not the aristocratic traditions extolled by Burke. He admired both the French Revolution and the Catholic Middle Ages. Very difficult to place Chesterton on any "Left-Right" spectrum. On the other side, Friedrich Nietzsche repudiated the whole idea of equality of any kind as pernicious and debasing. Ayn Rand held that selfishness, as she defined and described it in The Fountainhead, is the moral ideal. In her chapter "Conservatism: An Obituary" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she castigated conservatives like Sowell for using "the argument from depravity" to defend capitalism and freedom, thereby disastrously conceding the ideal to the socialists and Communists. Both Rand and Nietzsche argued that society exists for the good of the individual, particularly the superior individual, not the other way around. While Thomas Hobbes's defense of monarchy was based on a pure Constrained vision of human depravity, other, anti-Enlightenment, monarchists such as Joseph de Maistre continued to argue from Divine Right. Religious conservatives view religion and other things or sacraments like marriage as sacred ends in themselves and not merely useful means for the conservation of social order. There is also the John Birch Society, which defends conservative institutions such as the Constitution, but regards modern evils as stemming from a conscious conspiracy rather than from the unintended consequences of an erroneous ideology.

(I must say that these words "Constrained Vision" and "Unconstrained Vision" have connotations for me other than those denoted in Sowell's book.)

Brad Miner, in his The Concise Conservative Encyclopedia, lists 6 basic premises of the Right-Wing Weltanschauung, and contrasts them with 6 opposite premises of the Left:
Theism vs. Secularism (Not all conservatives are theists, but, as noted above, they all at least value religion as one of the great traditions of mankind.)
Realism vs. Relativism (Belief in an objective reality and an order of absolute values or "natural law" vs. relativism or subjectivism of any kind)
Skepticism vs. Progressivism (The skepticism is regarding the perfectibility of human nature vs. belief in human perfectibility)
Evolutionism vs. Constructivism (Belief that human societies, institutions, and traditions must organically evolve vs. belief that societies and institutions can be consciously constructed or re-constructed on rationalist models)
Federalism vs. Statism (Preference for state and local governments vs. preference for a centralized state)
Capitalism vs. Collectivism (A free enterprise economy vs. a state-controlled economy)

This whole spectrumology thing reminds me of the dualism so eloquently and profoundly articulated by Whittaker Chambers in his Witness: "God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism?"

Once again, the style of that dualism, and of all the dualities and polarities discussed above, is extremely interesting to me.

Going back to 1972/1973 and my own original discoveries of spectrumology, I saw a definition of the Left-Right polarity which fascinated me and has fascinated me ever since. It was mentioned in an article in Psychology Today by Charles Hampden-Turner, and then expanded upon in a book by Hampden-Turner, Radical Man. He later expanded on it, and many other psychological, philosophical. and mythological polarities, further in his Maps of the Mind. The spectrum is that of psychologist Sylvan Tomkins, who, in the early 1960s, put it in the form of this philosophical question:

"Is Man the measure, an end in himself, an active, creative, thinking, loving, desiring force in nature [Left]? Or must Man realize himself, attain his full stature, only through struggle toward, participation in, conformity to a norm, a measure, an ideal essence, basically independent of Man [Right]?"

The style of that is most fascinating to me, both sides of that polarity, that spectrum, and I have thought about it, and all of its endless ramifications, ever since. Many tie-ins....

Another extremely interesting book exploring the Left-Right polarity is Norberto Bobbio's Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. He analyzes various proposed definitions, such as that of Dino Cofrancesco, who argues that Left and Right mean "liberation" and "tradition", respectively. "Liberation" is defined largely as liberation from various hierarchies and inequalities, while "tradition" includes such things as archetypes, shared history, the grandeur of the past. Cofrancesco sees the most salient division between ideologies as not that of Left vs. Right, but Classic vs. Romantic, the Classic ideologies being scientific socialism, liberalism, and conservatism, the Romantic ideologies being anarcho-libertarianism, traditionalism, and fascism. I'm a Romantic. Bobbio concludes that Left and Right ultimately come down to equality vs. inequality: are we more alike or more unlike? I'm on the Right.

Perhaps the most definitive study ever made of the meanings of "Left" and "Right" on an ideological spectrum is Jean A. Laponce's Left and Right: The Topography of Political Perceptions. After an in-depth historical and cross-cultural study of the ancient archetypal and mythological symbolisms of left and right, as well as of the vertical dimension, and then the history of this polarity as it came to symbolize ideological polarities in the West since the French Revolution, he draws some interesting conclusions as to what they mean. He concludes that the primary, core, meaning of Left and Right is spatial, and from that, theological and socio-political: "verticality, Divinity, hierarchy" on the Right vs. "horizontality, secularity, equality" on the Left. Secondarily, it is temporal: continuity on the Right, discontinuity on the Left. Also spatially: the Right values boundaries, the Left values transgression or erasure of boundaries. From all this, he concludes that the Left represents entropic forces, the Right represents antientropic forces.

The style of it all! As you probably know, the use of "Left" and "Right" as religio-political terms in the modern West originated with the seating in the French Estates General or National Assembly in 1789. The First and Second Estates, the clergy and land-owning nobility, sat on the King's right, while the Third Estate, the urban middle class, sat on the King's left. These two sides came to disagree on some things, ultimately rather violently, and thus emerged the Left, standing for "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", vs. the Right, standing for "Throne and Altar". Unfortunately for the Left, there was a fatal contradiction in that. Liberty, by definition, means individuality, diversity, difference, inequality. Equality, by definition, means uniformity, similarity, conformity. Thus, there can be no Fraternity between Equality and Liberty. Free men and women are not equal, and equal men and women are not free. And, exercising my own Liberty, I must say that I prefer the style of Throne and Altar. On that note, I think I'll close this post. More on all this in my next....

Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Mon, 31 Jan 2005
Spectrumology IV -- But let's look deeper....

I'm going to have to flash forward now a couple decades from the MAD spectrum and quote another spectrum. I found this spectrum in a book on ideologies in the Political Science section of the library at Berkeley University where I was, among other things, doing some research on ancient civilizations.

This spectrum shows a line at the top radiating from Status Quo in two directions, leftward as Progressive Change, rightward as Retrogressive Change. Below the spectrum, the essential polarity of Left vs. Right is shown.
The Left is defined or described as "Human Rights, Rationalism, Egalitarianism, Personal Liberty, Internationalism".
The Right is defined or described as "Property Rights, Irrationalism, Elitism, Authoritarianism, Nationalism".

Again, from the Center of the spectrum, the ideologies or ideological orientations are described as follows:

Moderate: Fairly contented with the society. Supports gradual change. May be a "cop-out".

Liberal: Desires rapid, far-reaching change. Believes people can improve their lives through the use of reason.
Classical Liberal: Believed in natural law. Believed private property was an inalienable right. Believed government oppresssed people.
Contemporary Liberal: Believes private property is a social right. Believes government should be used to improve life through social experimentation.
[Extreme Liberal "will violate the law"]

Conservative: Is the most contented with the society. Is active in defending it against challenges to the status quo. Is pessimistic about human capacity to improve life through the use of reason. Depends on "tried and true" institutions. Believes private property is an inalienable right. Desires order.
[Extreme Conservative "will use the law"]

Radical: Desires immediate, fundamental change. Is frustrated, impatient, and revolutionary.
[Degrees of Radicalism range from "Pacifist" to "Will use violence as last resort" to "Thinks violence is likely" to "Demands violence"]

Reactionary: Wishes things to be as they were. The frustration level of the extreme reactionary is equal to that of the extreme radical.
[Extreme Reactionary "Believes war is good"]

Social Anarchist: Believes that government prevents the individual from making his or her greatest contribution to society.

Individual Anarchist: Believes that government prevents the individual from developing himself or herself.

Once again, the style of it all is extremely interesting. Hmmm....

So.... I started out with a ridiculous spectrum that looked like this:

socialist (international)____socialist____socialist (national)

Then I countered that with a more logical spectrum that looked like this:

socialist (total gov't)________limited gov't____anarchist (no gov't)

or:

statist/collectivist______________________________________individualist

In my next post, I showed a spectrum like this:

radical____liberal____moderate____conservative____reactionary

As described in the quiz, the radical Left here is obviously Communist. Its opposite, the reactionary Right, is, first of all, uncompromisingly anti-Communist. The reactionary insists on a high level of individual responsibility, is for "law and order" and tough punishments, and, unfortunately, is also racist or at least segregationist. The combination of unlimited "law and order" measures "to protect society from its enemies" with racial segregation points toward fascism. So, again, we end up with a spectrum like the one we started with:

Communist (international socialist)____fascist (national socialist)

Hmmm....

Now, let's take another look at the MAD spectrum. This spectrum satirically contrasts the distinctive styles of the differing and opposing ideologies. Basically, those on the Left are long-haired and "hip", while those on the Right are short-haired and "square". The Left starts with the affluent upper-middle-class Liberals, to the proletarian (or proletarian-identified) Old Leftists, to the thoroughly unkempt and obviously unemployable New Left Extremists. Of the three, the Old Left Marxists seem to me to be the most intellectually serious. The Right starts with the posh upper-class Conservatives (the National Review orbit of the American Right), to the middle-class Reactionaries (the John Birch Society orbit of the American Right), to the lower-working-class Right-Wing Militants. The Conservatives, followed closesly by the Reactionaries, seem to me to be the most intellectually serious. The essential stylistic dualism seems to be this:

"hippies"________________________________"squares"

The end-points of this spectrum are reversed from the spectrum I concluded with originally:

anarchist____________________________________fascist

But, on the way Leftward from Fascist to Anarchist, we pass through various permutations of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism, which, being totalitarian government is totally antithetical to Anarchism, which is no government at all. Hmmm....

The spectrum I just described in this post has these end-points:

anarchist (social)____________________anarchist (individual)

In between are the whole spectrum, on the Left, from the liberalism of Mill to the totalitarian radicalism of Mao, and, on the Right, from the conservatism of Burke to the reactionary authoritarianism of de Maistre, of Mussolini, or even as totalitarian as Hitler. The cluster of values associated with Left and the cluster of values associated with the Right have the same ambiguities as in the earlier spectra. Hmmm....

All these spectrumological paradoxes come together in one fascinating conversation I once overheard. Yes, I was privileged to have witnessed one of the greatest moments ever in the history of spectrumology. Every year during the early 1970s, I used to hang around the John Birch Society booth at the Oregon State Fair in Salem. One day, I heard an old Bircher arguing with a young liberal. At one point, the Bircher asked the young man how he defined "Left" and "Right". The young man answered: "'Right' means 'One Way, Only One Way.' 'Left' means 'Anything Goes.'" The older man replied: "It's just the opposite. 'Left' means 'One, One World, One Everything.' 'Right' means opposing that."

Once again, the style of the whole thing! These two spectra:

"One, One World, One Everything"________opposing "One, One World, One Everything"

"Anything Goes"__________________________________"One Way, Only One Way"

And, I must say this: I knew then, just intuitively, and I know now, from a lifetime of keen observation, careful analysis, and deep reflection, that both of these spectra are true, in different ways. I'll go into this more in my next post, and my next one after that, and....

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Fri, 28 Jan 2005
My introduction to spectrumology: the "MAD" spectrum -- III

Later, that year, in October of 1972, the satirical MAD magazine (in #154) ran a parody on such a spectrum, depicting the differing styles of various ideologies on a spectrum in visual as well as descriptive form, very concretely. The style of the whole thing was extremely interesting and continues to fascinate me. Starting with those closest to the genteel "Center" and radiating outward to the ragged "Extremes", I shall proceed to describe them. Thus:

Liberals: Feed their pets organic foods. Watch Dick Cavett. Try to see the other guy's point of view while being mugged. Bicycle. Say, "Peace!". Take up yoga. Support non-profit TV. Have tried pot. Secretly wish William F. Buckley was a Liberal. Secretly wish David Susskind wasn't. Walk around nude in front of the children. Know the name of their Congressman. Sign petitions. Are cremated. Get psychoanalyzed. Distrust Nixon. Subscribe to "Consumer Reports". Grind their own coffee. Make it a habit to call Negroes "Blacks". Hate being called "Leftists".

Conservatives: Wet their finger before turning the page of a book. Sleep in twin beds. Take pride in their penmanship. Waltz. Own Irish setters. Are reliable pall-bearers. Work out at a gym regularly. Mail in Warantees. Are life Members of the National Geographic Society. Refer to Mohammed Ali as Cassius Clay. Drive cars with low license plate numbers. Over-decorate their homes at Christmas time. Undertip. Take pride in their "regularity". Are on a first-name basis with their bank officer. Distrust Nixon. Are disgusted with Jim Bouton. Read Historical Markers. Wear vests. Hate being called "Reactionaries".

Leftists: Phone all-night radio talk shows in order to argue with the Emcee. Drive VW mini-buses. Organize amateur film festivals. Scratch. Save newspaper articles. Eat thick soups. Take in stray cats. Work in second-hand bookshops. Enjoy folk Dancing. Wear caps and mittens. Rooted for the Mets until they started winning. Omit zip codes. Do not eat breakfast. Make bookshelves out of old bricks. Sit in caefeterias alone, reading Underground Newspapers. Distrust Nixon. Carry their money in snap-clasp pocket purses. Have missing shirt buttons. Do not shave their legs. Hate being called "New Left Extremists".

Reactionaries: Pay cash. Are suspicious of FM radio. Wear suspenders. Do not mix flavors in ice cream cones. Erect high fences around their backyards. Enjoy Philadelphia. Never heard of John Lennon. Own canaries. Are convinced "Sesame Street" is subversive. Have middle-aged secretaries. Hate Astroturf. Cross picket lines. Take baths. Do not sleep past 7:00 A.M.. Are pleased with Mt. Rushmore except for Jefferson. Distrust Nixon. Carry their money in snap-clasp pocket purses. Wear jackets and ties to football games. Like meat well done. Hate being called "Right-Wing Militants".

New Left Extremists: Burn Incense. Name their children after American Indian heroes. Participate in nude weddings. Slouch. Grow their own marijuana. Shoplift. Eat chick peas. Watch the 4:00 A.M. movie on TV, stoned. Bring jars of peanut butter as house-warming gifts. Refuse to cooperate with Census Takers. Tie-die their babies' diapers. Cast their own horoscopes. Ignore New Year's Eve. Own no chairs. Mumble four-letter words in their sleep. Distrust Nixon. Teach their children Swahili. Do not wear socks or underwear. Move their belongings in wheelbarrow. Hate being called "Anarchists".

Right-Wing Militants: Wear boxer shorts and sleeveless undershirts. Lift weights. Hang Insurance Company calendars on their Living Room walls. Own Dobermans. Chew on match sticks. Buy Spiro Agnew watches for the wrong reasons. Bowl. Hang around gas stations. Send their mothers expensive, flowery, sentimental cards on Mother's Day. Belong to Gun Clubs. Frame their Army Decorations and Discharge Certificates. Only drink beer. Smoke Camels. Know Roller Derby stars by their first names. Are tatooed. Distrust Nixon. Don't understand what William F. Buckley says, but agree with him. Wear religious medals around their necks. Love parades. Hate being called "Fascists".

As I said, the styles of these ideologies as described and depicted here, and the whole style of this entire spectrum as described and depicted here, were and are extremely interesting to me. I myself identify most strongly stylistically with both the Conservative and the Reactionary here, and yet, paradoxically, I do not in the least mind being called, or calling myself, an Anarchist. Hmmm....

Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

My introduction to spectrumology: the quiz -- II

At that same time, near the summer of 1972, a quiz appeared in our high school Senior Scholastic magazine: "How Conservative/Liberal Are You?" The style was extremely interesting.

The scoring was this way:
10 -- ultraliberal or radical
20 -- liberal
30 -- moderate
40 -- conservative
50 -- ultraconservative or reactionary

In other words, a spectrum like this:

radical____liberal____moderate____conservative____reactionary

Here are the questions:

1) U.S. policy in Viet Nam should promote:
1. a Communist regime in South Viet Nam
2. withdrawal of all U.S. troops within 90 days
3. withdrawal of U.S. troops after a cease-fire and return of U.S. prisoners
4. withdrawal after defeat of the Communists
5. an invasion of North Viet Nam

2) I would vote for
1. neither Nixon nor McGovern since both represent a business-controlled system
2. McGovern
3. undecided
4. Nixon
5. neither Nixon nor McGovern since both are soft on Communism

3) Nixon's arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union
1. is meaningless, we need total disarmament
2. is a step in the right direction
3. should ease the arms race
4. weakens the strength of the U.S.
5. is a sell-out to the Communists

4) To resolve the welfare problem
1. income over $15,000 should be confiscated and given to the poor
2. a family of four should have a guaranteed income of $4,000 a year
3. federal subsidies should help families below poverty level
4. physically able people who won't work should be denied welfare
5. federal payments to the poor should be eliminated

5) The leading cause of crime in the U.S. is
1. the government, which oppresses minorities and the poor
2. poverty and drug addiction
3. prisons that do not rehabilitate prisoners
4. over-lenient courts and judges
5. failure to use capital punishment

6) President Nixon's trip to China
1. is meaningless since we are still bombing other Asians in North and South Viet Nam
2. is a step in the right direction
3. is a recognition of realities in the world today
4. undermines our Asian allies
5. is an act of betrayal and a sell-out to the Communists

7) Busing to achieve racial integration
1. should not be necessary since the government should force all-white areas to integrate their housing
2. is not perfect but is a valid way to achieve integration
3. should be used only as a last resort
4. should be abolished through a Constitutional Amendment
5. should be used only to bus black students to all-black schools

8) Draft evaders should
1. be welcomed home as heroes
2. be given amnesty now
3. be given amnesty after the war ends
4. be made to perform public service work in lieu of military service
5. be arrested and sent to prison

9) Wiretapping by the FBI
1. is a fascist plot
2. should be restricted or outlawed
3. should be permitted only with a court order
4. is an effective means of controlling crime and subversion
5. should be increased to protect society from its enemies

10) The 18-year-old vote
1. is meaningless because young people must operate outside the system
2. is a reflection of the maturity of youth
3. is necessary since 18-year-olds serve in the military and must be allowed to vote
4. is a mistake because 18-year-olds lack the maturity to vote intelligently
5. is wrong because it gives more power to freaks and Commies

That last answer to that last question is an excellent climax, I must say. The style of it all. Suffice it to say that my present answers to these questions, and my score on this quiz, are very, very far to the Right of what they were when I first took it, and even of what they were only four years ago. My answers are as follows:

1)5, 2)4, 3)5, 4)5, 5)5, 6)5, 7)4, 8)5, 9)3, 10)5

My total score: 46 -- ultraconservative or reactionary

Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Thu, 27 Jan 2005
My introduction to spectrumology -- I

It's time and long past time for me to start writing about spectrums! Anyway, what is a spectrum in the sense of a political or ideological spectrum? It's a way of visualizing the relations between ideologies, their similarities and differences, their alliances and oppositions, and their most salient elements, and, above all, their styles! on a visual graph or spatial representation. Unfortunately, I'm still not able to depict a spectrum at this time, so I'll just have to rely on verbal descriptions for now. As a bus driver once said, bear with me until we get squared away. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectra. Spectrums I do love.

I was first introduced into the sphere of spectrumology back in 1972. A number of things happened in that year, I encountered a number of fascinating spectra. The John Birch Society is an extremely interesting organization. Whatever else you may say about it, no one has ever been able to dispute that it has style. In 1972, "a concerned American" sent to our family in the mail a copy of Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy. What intrigued me most within that little book was not his conspiracy theory nearly so much as his spectrumology.

He contrasted two spectrums, the usual one used by most of the media or the Establishment vs. a much more logical one:

"The Establishment promotes the idea of the inevitability of Communism through its perversion of terms used in describing the political spectrum. (See Chart 1) We are told that on the far Left of the political spectrum we find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial. But, we are also told that equally to be feared is the opposite of the far Left, i.e., the far Right, which is labeled Fascism. We are constantly told that we should try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed democracy, but by which the Establishment means Fabian (or creeping) socialism. (The fact that the middle of the road has been moving inexorably leftward for forty years is ignored.) Here is an excellent example of the use of false alternatives. We are given the choice between Communism (international socialism) on one end of the spectrum, Naziism (national socialism) on the other end, or Fabian socialism in the middle. The whole spectrum is socialist!

"This is absurd. Where would you put an anarchist on this spectrum? Where do you put a person who believes in a Constitutional Republic and the free enterprise system? He is not represented here, yet this sprectrum is used for political definitions by a probable ninety percent of the people of this nation.

"There is an accurate political spectrum. (See Chart 2) Communism is, by definition, total government. If you have total government, it makes little difference whether you call it Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Caesarism, or Pharaohism. It's all pretty much the same from the standpoint of the people who must live and suffer under it. If total government (by any of its pseudonyms) stands on the far Left, then by logic the far Right should represent anarchy, or no government.

"Our Founding Fathers revolted against the near-total government of the English monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would lead to chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist under a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not grant. Our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man's labor and give it to another who had not earned it. Our government was to be one of severely limited powers. Thomas Jefferson said: 'In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.' Jefferson knew that if the government were not enslaved, people soon would be,"

The spectrum Gary Allen describes here, and which has long been used by the John Birch Society among others, is obviously much more useful than the one usually used. I have since then encountered a number of variations on that spectrum, in certain books and on the Web. Ayn Rand used a quite similar spectrum:

"Since, today, there are no clear definitions of political terms, I use the word 'rightist' to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of individual freedom and capitalism -- and the word 'leftist' to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of government controls and socialism. As to the middle or 'center,' I take it to mean 'zero', i.e., no dominant position, i.e., a pendulum swinging from side to side, moment by moment."
-Ayn Rand, "The Disfranchisement of the Right", The Ayn Rand Letter, December 20, 1971

The style of that!

Just a couple days ago as of this writing, I finished reading an extremely interesting book based on such a spectrum from total government or totalitarianism on the Far Left, to limited government and individual freedom with responsibility on the Right, to no government or anarchy on the Far Right. The book is Maximum Liberty: An Introduction to the Scope and Form of Government.

Back in 1968, I saw a textbook with a stylized spectrum contrasting Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism by showing extremely stylized figures, one in black (the State) vs. the other in blue (the Individual). As you moved Left, the State got bigger vis-a-vis the Individual, and as you moved Right, the Individual and the State became evenly matched. The style of that spectrum was extremely "square"! Anarchy was not shown on that spectrum, but that was the logical direction of the Right. Here is a spectrum showing the same relationship in cartoon form. Once again, the style!

A little later, in that same year in high school (or "the Royal Orgy House", as some of us called it), my friend Charles William Harrington drew a spectrum on the blackboard with conformity to the collective on the Left vs. individuality on the Right. His style!

OK, I'll try to draw for you a primitive example of these sorts of spectrums. I'll start with the kind of spectrum we're trying to get away from:

internat'l socialism________________socialism________________nat'l socialism

Here's the more logical type of spectrum:

total gov't____________________________________limited gov't____________anarchy

Or, boiling it down to its essence:

state________________________________________________________________Individual

The style of it all! I shall continue with more spectra, many more spectra, later. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectrums. Spectrums I do love.

[/Spectrums] permanent link

Sat, 01 Jan 2005
....Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!....

[/Colors] permanent link

....Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!....

[/Colors] permanent link

....Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!, Happy New Year!....

[/Colors] permanent link

Sat, 25 Dec 2004
....Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!....

[/Colors] permanent link

....Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!....

[/Colors] permanent link

....Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!, Merry Christmas!....

[/Colors] permanent link

Fri, 24 Dec 2004
A most controversial Christmas: Where are they and what are they doing?....

Mrs. Bricker is preparing a gigantic dinner in her enormous dining room in her home in the San Francisco East Bay Area for all of her many, many guests to celebrate Santa's Day.
Mr. Bricker is staying with a family on a farm in his old home town in the middle of Ohio while encouraging his fellow Republicans in 29 states to conserve the Constitution.
Rev. Jim is staying with his men in a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, preparing a sermon on the Son of Man.
Wicked Wanda is staying with her women in the most expensive hotel in downtown Manhattan while attending a conference of the world's greatest scientists to promote the atheistic theory of EVILution.
Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma are alone on one of the Western islands of Hawaii celebrating the Mass of the Christ and of the Most High Goddess, the Queen of Heaven.

[/Characters] permanent link

Merry Christmas!

[Pack a lunch and read this whole fascinating thread, because....:] Joe Gandelman, Dean Esmay, the Queen of All Evil, Arnold Harris, Janelle, Paul Burgess, Brannon, Catch 22, Dani, Dave D., Kevin D., and all the rest of us wish you a very Merry Christmas!

[/Prime] permanent link

Wed, 29 Sep 2004
Colors, colors, colors, colors....

....colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors....

[/Colors] permanent link

Colors, colors, colors, colors....

....colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors....

[/Colors] permanent link

Sun, 26 Sep 2004
Colors, colors, colors, colors....

....colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors, colors....

[/Colors] permanent link

The spectrumological color symbolisms of my characters

On the Far Right: Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma, Conservative, captive, for discipline, for myth, polytheism, absolutes, monogamy, Total Commitment marriage, Mondrian, the Mercator Map, and monarchy -- blue and red.

On the Far Left: Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, Hannah...), Liberal, libertine, for license, for science, atheism, relativity, promiscuity, adultery, marijuana, the metric system, and anarchy -- green and purple.

[/Colors] permanent link

Red vs. Blue: a spectrumological reversal of symbolisms?

We hear much talk today of "Red America" vs. "Blue America", and seeing a reference to that in Eric Scheie's Classical Values got me to thinking....

These color symbolisms. I keep thinking about this interesting reversal during the last four years. Traditionally, red has been the color of the Left or the liberals while blue has been the color of the Right or the conservatives. I've read that the colors of the flag of Panama reflect that old symbolism, and I have a book "Are You a Conservative or a Liberal?" with a blue arrow pointing right vs. a red arrow pointing left on the cover. Here is an interesting spectrum that also uses that symbolism of red and blue. And we must never forget General Edwin Anderson Walker's "square" anti-Communist Pro-Blue program, imbuing his soldiers with faith in God and self.

Perhaps this has to do with the historic shifting of which is the elitist vs. which is the populist side. Historically, the Right has been the side of the elites, of royalty, clergy, and nobility, and later of the capitalists, the side of inequality and hierarchy, the side of the "blue-bloods", while the Left has been the side of the common man, of the sansculottes, of the peasants and workers, the side of equality and democracy, the side that held up the red banner of proletarian revolution. Oswald Spengler wrote that red was the extroverted, popular color, suited to the Greek love for the sensuously-present, while blue was the introverted, aristocratic, color, suited to the Northern longing for the distant.

(I must also note, however, that red has also historically been worn by royalty and by the the cardinals of the Catholic church. Red symbolizes the Blood of the Christ.)

Today, the spectrumology seems to be switching around in many ways. The Left is increasingly identified with elites in academia and in the media, both of news and of entertainment, the "Jet Set", the "limousine liberals", "parlor pinks", or "radical chic", "effete snobs" (as Spiro Agnew called them), "the annointed" (as Thomas Sowell calls them), perhaps the closest equivalent to "blue-bloods" in today's America, while the Right increasingly identifies itself with the common man, the ordinary (or "ornery" as some like to call themselves) American, the farmers and workers and small businessmen and housewives, the "silent majority", the "red-blooded" "red-meat eaters".

A few years ago, my friend Robin Georg Olsen thought up a spectrum with 2 dimensions. One dimension was that of "Left" (modernist) vs. "Right" (traditionalist). The other dimension was that of "Grass-roots" (populist) vs. "Leadership" (elitist). Particularly ever since September 11, 2001, and then June 26, 2003, I myself have increasingly moved both toward the Right and toward the Leadership pole, increasingly reactionary and increasingly elitist. I think about that spectrum all the time. Many, many tie-ins and ramifications....

Interesting questions about it all.... Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... Colors, colors, colors, colors....

[/Colors] permanent link

Sat, 25 Sep 2004
All about me, what I'm all about, what I must do here....

(A sort of mini-autobiography of me if you will....)

In response to this thread in Dean's World....:

....I wrote this:

I would tell my younger self:

In 3rd Grade: "Keep reading L. Frank Baum's Oz books."

In 4th-6th Grade: "Keep studying Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Hawaiian, Norse, Aztec, Hindu, Japanese, etc., mythologies. Study Hellenic and Roman mythology, too. The Bible, too, the Old Testament especially. PolyTheology is the Queen of the Sciences, of which philosophy is only the handmaiden. Beware of too much abstract philosophy. Beware of getting into political philosophy, you may become a socialist."

In 7th-11th Grades: "Stop being a socialist. Stop being soft on Communism. Support the War in Viet Nam, demand that we fight to win. Keep reading Friedrich Nietzsche and Oswald Spengler. Read Ayn Rand. Go to the Right, young man, go to the Right. There, at the Starboard end of spectrums, you will find the highest idealism."

From 12th Grade to 25: "Good that you're reading libertarians, from Rand to Rothbard, and conservatives, from Burke to Birchites. You're noticing that they have style, many, many fascinating styles, even when you violently disagree with them. Keep reading Nietzsche and Spengler. Rand is superior to Rothbard. Someday you will like Leonard Peikoff, too, Ayn Rand's heir. Good that you're getting into spectrums of ideologies. Keep thinking about spectrums. Stop hating President Nixon so much. I know he won't legalize drugs, but you don't smoke that much dope anyway. Sex is far more important. You get high on sexual fantasy, not dope. Sex is the highest high. Keep it that way. Don't drink so much booze. Worship Aphrodite more than Dionysus.

"Nixon, Agnew, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Liddy, Magruder, Mitchell, Rebozo -- they are "square" and have style. You dimly sense that now, that's why you enjoy this Watergate imbroglio so much. You'll miss them years later. You'll remember how great they were. Vote for Ford, not that Libertarian. You'll regret not voting for Ford and thereby helping that wimp Carter to win. Ford has style, even as much as Nixon, though in a different kind of style. He is "square" and you will admire him more in years to come, he will defend homosexuals. Carter has none, he will sell out to our country's enemies.

"Support President Reagan, he is an enemy of the Communists, and he, too, has style. Oppose the nuclear freeze movement. The John Birch Society is right, it is a Communist front to weaken our military. Keep reading literature from the John Birch Society, they always have style even when you most violently disagree with them. Most of the time they are right. You do admire Goldwater, you will admire him more in years to come, he will defend homosexuals. In your heart, you will know he was right.

"Good that you're reading Chesterton as well as Rand, Spengler, and Nietzsche. Good that you're getting into colors. Colors, colors, colors, colors.... Think about spectrums more. Develop that spectrum that you and David Smith created back in the Nixon era. There are so many, many spectrums, and so many, many tie-ins. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... Stop drinking so much booze. Get high on colors, spectrums, and sex more, the highest high.

"Keep your libido high. Direct your sexual longings and fantasies toward the highest type of woman you can imagine. Glorify Lesbianism, the highest type of sex, Lesbian sado-masochism. Remember that all sex is sado-masochistic, i.e., captivating, in its essence, even when not explicitly so. In bondage is your highest freedom. Remember that the suggestive is sexier than the explicit. Admire men's men, too, even though you are not man enough to be one yourself. Remember that sex is at its highest and tightest in a totally committed monogamous marriage -- that is the most captivating form of bondage. Sex is Divine. Remember all those ancient mythologies. Goddesses. Many, many tie-ins. Yes, wicked Wanda and all her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, Hannah...). But, above all, holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma.

"Become a better writer. Develop your characters more, and do something about plot structure. You have a good theme, such as it is, the tie-ins between politics, religion, and sex, the various spectrums, the Divinity of the Individual self. Discipline your style of writing.

At all ages: "Discipline yourself! Be more "square", get a crew-cut more often. Be more orderly. Work harder. Shut your mouth and respect your elders and betters more. Be alert. Keep thinking for yourself, but think more coherently. And start blogging more. Get back to blogging. Start blogging about those spectrums."

[/Prime] permanent link

Fri, 24 Sep 2004
Still more on this damned election

[This is an exchange from a thread in the Queen's blog. I hope this is the last I'll have to write on this subject here in my own blog because I really must start writing about colors, spectrums, my characters....]

My friend Edmond the Libertarian started off with a bang with this:

"I must give a slightly different, and probably to the dismay of others, a somewhat rambling answer.

First of all, I am a Republican. To switch sides, on state wide elections particularly, means that the other party candidate was not merely better than my party's candidate. On state wide, including the presidential one, one has to remember that there are other sections of the party besides one's own. Some are more conservative, some are more liberal. However, the candidate must represent some expression of Republican principles, and that candidate must recognize my section as a legitimate form of Republicanism. He or she must also want the Party of Lincoln to be and remain such, according to classical Republican principles.

This is why I did not vote for my party's Senatorial candidate in 2000, but voted for the Dem. In 2006, there shall be a repeat performance. The person in question fails test on almost every point. He needs Specter to save his ass in 2006, so he can become Senate Majority Leader, he hopes. Satanorum is one alleged 'Republican' I would love to see lose.

Now how would my party's candidate, Bush, lose my vote? Right now, he does not have it. He needs to regain it. I doubt that he shall do anything to do so. All he has done has been to give me more reasons not to vote for him. I need not give a list. The only ones that might be interested in hearing me rant further already know what the reasons are. I don't have to list them, do I, Steven Malcolm Anderson?"

Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 23, 2004 01:04 PM

I later chimed in with this:

"Edmond the Libertarian, Cinomed, and Rhianna put it very well. Here's what I have to say:

Bush could lose my vote by:

1) Appeasing the anti-homosexual crowd more than he has already.

2) Appeasing Saudi Arabia, our #1 Enemy abroad, more than he has already.

3) Appeasing Iran, our #2 Enemy abroad, more than he has already.

4) Appeasing our Communist enemies, Communist China and North Korea, more than he has already.

5) Start appeasing Castro.

6) Depucilating the First Amendment more than he has already.

7) Betraying the Second Amendment.

Conversely, Kerry could win my vote by:

1) Apologizing to his fellow soldiers who he smeared as war criminals after he came back from Viet Nam.

2) Acknowledging that Communism was and is a monstrous tyranny and that we were right to fight it.

3) Recognizing that, as of 9/11/2001, we are at War against Islam's terrorists and the governments that support them, that the survival of America and the West is at stake, and that we must fight to win.

4) Recognizing that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual man or woman to keep and bear arms for his or her self-defense.

5) Respecting the First Amendment as well.

6) Holding to those positions. Stop contradicting himself all the time."

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 24, 2004 01:20 AM

To which Edmond replied:

"Steven Malcolm Anderson, remember when there was that push to renew that stupid so-called assault weapon ban, that ban on certain guns that looked 'bad' and 'scary'? Thankfully, the House stopped it, and it died the death it deserved. What did that courageous leader, Brave Sir George, say? He would sign the bill if it passed! Not even the comments he made during the Campaign Finance Reform fiasco, of personally thinking it to be unconstitutional. No, he would just sign the bill.

Apparently, those who strongly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, they do not merit any stand in their defense from our brave Sir George.

Those wanting their own views as to who can or cannot marry enshrined in the Constitution itself, those he takes their side.

I suppose the lesson is, if you want Sir George to be on your side, make sure your positions restrict liberty, not defend it."

Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 24, 2004 11:43 AM

I had to agree:

"Edmond the Libertarian:

You make a good case for voting for Badnarik. Neither Bush nor Kerry is a friend of freedom. The problem is, it won't be Badnarik who will be inaugurated next year. Unfortunately, it will be either Bush or Kerry, and so the only choice is, which of the two is more likely to be the least disastrous for our country. So far, unless I hear something I haven't ever heard before from Kerry, it looks like it will have to be Bush."

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 24, 2004 12:59 PM

I added:

"Oh, and, by the way, Mr. President: "Religion of Peace", my ass!

After the Japanese (or Japs, as our soldiers called them back in those days) bombed Pearl Harbor, I don't recall hearing anything about President Roosevelt praising Shintoism -- which is a much better religion than Islam ever was, in my opinion.

Yes, I am a Politically Incorrect Western Imperialist Warmonger -- proudly.

After the election, I'm planning to write Bush an e-mail explaining to him that the only reason I voted for him is because Kerry is even worse, and that I do not tolerate the so-called "assault weapons" ban or any other gun control, nor "campaign finance reform" or censorship of pornography or any other abridgement of the First Amendment, nor the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment, nor deficit spending, nor appeasement of our enemies at home or abroad.

I have yet to hear any reason why I should consider voting for Kerry."

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 24, 2004 01:25 PM

Edmond replied:

"Yes, Steven Malcolm Anderson, I am still looking for reasons to give support to Kerry, rather than merely because of what Bush isn't or because of various factors in the current political realm external to Kerry.

However, I one time listed the following:

1. Divided government. Republicans will be more true to their priniciples if dumb ideas have a D after them instead of an R. They will not receive the arm twisting they have been now, as well. Kerry will be prevented from doing his worst ideas due to newly found Republican backbone, and Kerry will prevent the bad ideas of conservative statists from taking place. These are definite pluses.

2. Bush would have nothing to lose in his second term. Kerry would, being his first term. Kerry would be less likely to push bad ideas if he might pay for them the next election. Bush does not have another election.

3. The GOP will put someone better up in 2008, and we would have a chance to move the GOP away from the Satanorumite statist direction it has been moving in.

4. Kerry can stop there from being a President Hilliary, a plus in and of itself.

5. I want a Republican in there, not a less crusty version of LBJ, as E J Dionne of the Washington Post would say. Some people give away the depths of Democratism in their soul when they speak of how past Democrats would approve of Bush's policies. Disgruntled Democrats should go back to their party and take their fellow LBJ disciples in the GOP with them. Telling me why he is like a Democrat is the best way to win my disapproval of Bush. [Zell Miller giving the nominating speech only re-emphasized the validity of my complaints in this department.]

6. The GOP needs new leadership. A Kerry presidency would be the opportunity for more Republican minded, in the older Republican sense of it, not the disgruntled Democratic sense, men and women, to push for GOP to regain territory it had lost, and would stop the mindless push for the last remaining conservative Anglo Democratic regions, a push that has cost us more than what we have gained.

7. Lastly, cleanup of some of the mess that has occurred under Bush's watch (some does go back to Clinton, as well) can be cleaned up during the Kerry term. That gives the GOP a little more space in the blame game. The Dems having some power will have to contribute to the process. If it is not cleaned up, both will have some blame, not just one side. A good atmosphere to get it accomplished.

It is not merely who is, in the abstract, better, but who, given the current political situation, in the world, the nation, and the two parties, will be the best fit to fulfill the role of president in such a place? This includes how he or she would act, given the current political divisions, but it also includes how the other branches and the two parties shall react with him or her in office. Right now, it would appear more to be Kerry.

These are reasons to support a Kerry victory, or perhaps a Bush defeat would be more appropriate for this scenario.

The hard part is actually pulling the lever for Kerry. If only the parties would regain the diversity that they had in the first half of the 1980's, but that is not going to happen. I would rather lose the House, but being realistic, it will have to either be the Senate or the White House. Badnarik will probably have to be it, unless I want to hold up the entire line, staring at the lever."

Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 24, 2004 02:34 PM

Again, I had to agree:

"Edmond the Libertarian:

Excellent. I should have said: Nobody except Edmond the Libertarian, the last true Republican, has ever given me a good reason to consider voting for Kerry. I must add, though, that some Objectivists such as no less than Leonard Peikoff himself, are considering voting for Kerry for reasons very similar to those you named. I'll continue thinking about it, even though there are much better things to think about."

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 24, 2004 02:53 PM"

But, then, I had to add this:

"Edmond the Libertarian:

In your excellent reply you wrote this as a reason for preferring Kerry over Bush:

"1. Divided government. Republicans will be more true to their priniciples if dumb ideas have a D after them instead of an R. They will not receive the arm twisting they have been now, as well. Kerry will be prevented from doing his worst ideas due to newly found Republican backbone, and Kerry will prevent the bad ideas of conservative statists from taking place. These are definite pluses."

The italics are mine. I have serious doubts about that one part of what you wrote, based on my experience with 8 years of listening to Clinton's supporters. It was a mirror image of what those Republicans you described did for Bush. Kerry, in all probability, will not oppose the bad statist ideas of the Satanorumites. He will put his finger to the wind and then sign every fucking bill they put before him, just as Bush is doing for the gun-banners.

Clinton instituted "don't ask don't tell", then he signed the DOMA, he advocated school uniforms, and, worst of all, he signed -- and his Attorney General enthusiastically defended -- the so-called "Communications Decency Act" to ban all sexually-arousing material from the Internet. Fortunately, the Supreme Court threw that out because it was blatantly un-Constitutional, but that was no thanks to Clinton.

And, for 8 long years, I had to listen to Democrats, so-called "liberals", justifying every damned one of those things. Kerry will do the same, cave in to Satanorum and his gang, at every turn -- and his Democrats will justify every part of it as "a necessary compromise" to get what they think is "really important", i.e., their welfare-state economic agenda. "What's more important," they will ask, "your right to privacy or the right of everyone to a government-guaranteed income?"

They are basically Marxist materialists who believe that everything and everyone is driven by economics and greed for money. Listen to their arguments against the War: "It's all about the oil!" That says more about them than it does about Bush or anybody else.

What this comes down to is that, whoever wins the White House in November, it is imperative that we who value the spiritual and the individual do everything we can to counter the influence of the Satanorumites. We cannot count on the economic determinists to do it for us."

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 24, 2004 08:11 PM

I think that will be my last word on all that here for at least a while. Now, on to more interesting things....

[/Screeds] permanent link

Where they stand on homosexual rights: a comparison

[OK, that wasn't the last one on this, and there's another one coming up. Too bad.]

BEST

Republican incumbent Vice President Dick Cheney:
* Has Lesbian daughter Mary Cheney. ---- GOOD
* "Sodomy" laws: Against. "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." ---- GOOD
* Same-Sex Marriage: Should be left to the states. Opposes FMA. Period. ---- GOOD
* Has said that will obey Bush. ---- NOT GOOD

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards:
* "Sodomy" laws: Against. Believes such laws are an invasion of the privacy between consenting adults. ---- GOOD
* Same-Sex Marriage: Was for it before he was against it, but believes it should be left to the states. Supports civil unions. Opposes FMA, but did not vote against it when he should have. ---- NOT GOOD

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry:
* "Sodomy" laws: Probably against, but that's not a live issue in Massachusetts. ---- OK
* Same-Sex Marriage: Was for it before he was against it, but believes it should be left to the states. Supports civil unions. Opposes FMA, but did not vote against it when he should have. ---- NOT GOOD

Republican incumbent President George W. Bush:
* "Sodomy" laws: Supported the Texas "sodomy" law while Governor of Texas in the name of "traditional values". Now, over a year after Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas, he concedes that "consenting adults should be free to do what they want in the privacy of their own house." In other words, he was for it before he was against it. ---- BAD TO OK....
* Same-Sex Marriage: Against. Supports FMA, which means that he believes same-sex marriage should be banned in every state by the federal government, whether the people there want it or not. May allow civil unions. ---- BAD

WORST

[/Screeds] permanent link

Thu, 23 Sep 2004
Election 2004: my priorities

This is my first and (I hope) last post here about this Presidential election of 2004. These are my priorities, my criteria, the issues on which I'm going to base my vote, in this more or less descending order of importance to me:

1) Win this War Against Islam's Terrorists [MILITARY/MORAL]

2a) Defend the First Amendment [MORAL]

2b) Defend the Second Amendment [MORAL/MILITARY]

3) Defend the right to privacy and homosexual marriage [MORAL]

4) Balance the federal budget [ECONOMIC]

That's it for me. Everything else is secondary or tertiary or utterly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I've spent what seems to be at least a couple months reading the arguments for Bush vs. Kerry on many, many blogs. I respect those who won't be voting for either, but the fact remains that either Bush or Kerry will end up in the White House next year, so the only question for me is which one will be the less disastrous in the light of the above criteria. As I say, I have been read the arguments for and against both in abundance, and I've concluded, based on everything I've seen so far, that Kerry would be even worse than Bush. If you can convince me otherwise, please do so, but please tell me something I haven't heard a dozen or a hundred or a thousand times before.

[/Screeds] permanent link

Back to blogging

Yes, I'm back again. For several months, due to some technical problem with our FTP program, I was unable to blog at all. I had gotten completely out of the habit, spending all my time reading and commenting on other people's blogs. I need to get back to my own blog. OK. A lot has gone on since then and now, homosexual marriages, anti-homosexual collectivism, this election, etc.. This isn't a news blog, though, in any sense. I'm going to confine myself mainly to writing about things that aren't so time-sensitive, and also that don't require a lot of links to other blogs and sites. That was one of the things that was slowing me down, the necessity of chasing down some five or ten or a dozen (it seems) "A HREF="'s for every paragraph I wrote. Countless other bloggers do that far better than me, most notably Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, an indespensible blog for many purposes, but in this respect the opposite of me in terms of his style of blogging. I just want, need, to write! One of the purposes of this blog was to write essays on spectrumology, or the contemplation of ideological spectrums, and that's what I'm going to do. Plus things about colors and my characters. I also need to update my blogroll.

[/Prime] permanent link

Answers to some questions about my blogging

This is what I wrote in this thread here in Dean's World in reply to these questions:

"1. Why did you start a blog?

2. Do you have a blogmother/blogfather?

3. Has it helped/hurt/had no effect on your professional life?

4. Do your 'real world' friends know that you blog?

5. Do you have a blog crush?"

1. To write about colors, spectrums of ideologies, and my characters, to articulate my ideology, and to vent my spleen. Over the past year, so much has made me angry that I've spent most of my time doing the last thing, writing angry screeds. I'm going to quit that, at least for a while, and write about colors, spectrums, and my characters. I need to do much more blogging, period.

2. I give all the credit to my brother, David Matthew Anderson, a professional programmer, for the very existence of my blog and all the technology behind it. I only supply the ideology. As for inspiration, I admire above all Eric Scheie of Classical Values and urge all and each of you to read him and dig through his archives. I also admire Dean Esmay and Rosemary Esmay the Queen of All Evil. And Jeff Soyer of Alphecca. I also admire that triad of freedom-lovers: Timothy Sandefur (Freespace), Jonathan Rowe, and Ed Brayton (Dispatches from the Culture Wars).

3. No effect.

4. Some do, some don't. Many of my "real-world" friends and relatives don't even know what a blog is.

5. Jeanine Ring of Salon Total Freedom above all. I would say the Queen of All Evil, too, but she's already married to Dean. I admire the Queen for marrying Dean, and I admire Dean for marrying the Queen. I also find Rachel Lucas, Venomous Kate, Michelle Catalano, Michelle Malkin, and La Shawn Barber to be sexy. Trudy W. Schuett sounds very interesting, too. She wrote a very sexy comment in the Queen's blog once.

[/Prime] permanent link

Mon, 20 Sep 2004
September 11, 2001:

Never forget. Never forgive. NEVER AGAIN.

We are at War.

"Victory, victory at all cost, victory however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival."
-Winston Churchill

[/Screeds] permanent link

Mon, 29 Mar 2004
A Liberal on War

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stuart Mill, 1868

[/Screeds] permanent link

sma4@speakeasy.net

My highest, holiest, eternal, absolute values, dogmas:
Polytheistic
"Godliness",
"Selfishness",
"Sexiness"
Categories:
Prime,
Screeds,
Spectrums,
Characters,
Colors


Home,
Some books that have profoundly shaped my thought:
Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology by Murray S. Davis
A World Between by Norman Spinrad
Left and Right: The Topography of Political Perceptions by Jean A. Laponce
Optical Color & Simultaneity by Ellen Marx
Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson by Camille Paglia
Krazy Kat by George Herriman, & introduction by e. e. cummings
The Lost Princess of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Stories From Old Egypt
Spectrums!, colors, alphabets, ideological spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectrums. Spectrums I do love....:
The VisiBone Color Lab,
Omniglot: Alphabets and Scripts,
a SQUARE spectrum of colors,
Political Spectrum - Wikipedia,
The Pournelle Spectrum,
The OICU2/AFC Spectrum,
Psychological Types,
The Political Compass
....the only thing more beautiful to me than a spectrum....
all of this protected by:
the Constitution of the United States of America
Where we are now heading: a warning:
Nineteen Eighty-four (1984) by George Orwell
Also, and though I am not a Christian:
Heretics, Orthodoxy, the Blatchford Controversies by G. K. Chesterton
Between Noon and Three: Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace by Robert Farrar Capon
The Bible, King James Version
Gateway On-Line Bible Concordance
"BOB",
Jack T. Chick,
Jim Goad
You can search the Web with
Google.
Blog Roll of Honor and other indispensible sites:
David Matthew Anderson (On DMAnd), my brother to whom I owe everything,
Rachel Lucas is no longer blogging, nothing but a white screen here now. Sorry.
Jeff Soyer (Alphecca),
Eric Scheie (Classical Values),
Don Watkins (Anger Management),
Agenda Bender (i.e., Tom Brennan),
Arthur Silber (The Light of Reason),
John Kusch (Letters from a Strip of Dirt),
Chris Matthew Sciabarra,
Andrew Sullivan,
Dean and Rosemary (the Queen Of All Evil) Esmay (Dean's World),
Timothy Sandefur (Freespace),
Jonathan Rowe,
Ed Brayton (Dispatches from the Culture Wars),
Tom G. Palmer,
Randy E. Barnett,
Susie Bright,
Betty Dodson,
Michael Demmons (Discount Blogger),
Boi From Troy,
Michelle Catalano (A Small Victory),
Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine),
Mike Silverman (Red Letter Day),
The Raving Atheist,
Mark Wickens,
William Quick (Daily Pundit),
Bill Whittle (Eject! Eject! Eject!),
Marriage Debate,
Dan Pinello (Notes from the Front Lines of the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage),
Cox & Forkum,
Eugene Volokh (the Volokh Conspiracy),
Radley Balko (The Agitator),
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit),
Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs),
Billy Beck (Two-Four),
Meryl Yourish,
Steven Den Beste (U.S.S. Clueless),
Virginia Postrel (Dynamist),
Stephen A. McNallen (Asatru Folk Assembly),
The Troth,
Alain de Benoist,
The VisiBone Color Lab,
Omniglot: Alphabets and Scripts,
Political Spectrum - Wikipedia,
The Pournelle Spectrum,
The OICU2/AFC Spectrum,
Psychological Types,
The Political Compass,
The Society of Janus,
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom,
"Sodomy" Laws: U.S. (history now) and World,
John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner vs. State of Texas (June 26, 2003),
the Ominous Parallels,
Independent Gay Forum,
Lavender (But Not Pink): a Conservative Lesbian (lots of good links here),
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians,
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League,
Pink Pistols,
Self-Defense is a Human Right,
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership,
Cato Institute,
Institute for Justice
The Ayn Rand Institute,
the Middle East Media Research Institute,
Daniel Pipes,
America At War,
In Moral Defense Of Israel,
Jewish World Review,
Jewish Defense League,
Hindu Unity,
the Nizkor Project, exposing Holocaust deniers as professional liars
Some worthy, i.e., honest, open, enemies:
Robert T. Lee -- "AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION PRODUCES HOMOSEXUALITY!"
Rev. Fred Phelps -- "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates America"


Subscribe to a syndicated RSS feed of my weblog.