On different kinds of Untruth

Stoic

by Albert Brenner

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Man is not affected by events but by the view he takes of them. Epictetus

It is simply not a winning recipe anymore to use Reason as a tool to counter the irrationality inherent in modern discourses on race. It is as if the methods of the natural sciences – and positivism in the social sciences – have become all but redundant.

For example, the use of statistical analysis to prove that black-on-white crime is vastly more prevalent than white-on-black crime has proven to be ineffective when it comes to calling for even-handedness in academic debates, good faith in politics and legal justice for white individuals and their communities. Similarly, (most) white liberals and their black disciples have no problem acknowledging the scientific validity of IQ test scores when it suits their purposes. Yet when it does not, they deny its validity. This is completely irrational, for the litmus test of rationality demands that one cannot hold A and non-A simultaneously.

Even the utilisation of precise scientific measurements leading to empirically-valid facts are denied by (most) liberals. For example, the average male body has ten times more testosterone than the average female body. Testosterone plays a huge role in behaviour, as any expert in physiology and human behaviour would readily attest to. Meaning that it is simply false to believe that gender is a social construct, because the amount of testosterone in the human body hugely impacts average gender – ergo, role – behaviour.

The above-mentioned examples, and numerous others, proves that traditional forms of truth-validation do not hold sway anymore in the irrational universe of modern discourses on race. Meaning that we are, literally, back in the days of Galileo and the Inquisition… where even 100% proof of heliocentricity could not negate the dogma underpinning geocentricity.

It is therefore imperative that conservatives devise new forms of critique – hence, a new methodology – in order to regain their foothold in the narrative on/of race in the academic and public spheres.

In order to do so, it is necessary to isolate and examine the core rationale, the thesis, holding the (still dominant) liberal race-narrative together. Once this has been done, one only needs to define its antithesis and, if present, exploit the synthesis.

The two most salient characteristics of the liberal race narrative are individual agency and emotionality. The former flows (mostly) from the aestheticism of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida. The latter obviously flows from Freud.

Both the above-mentioned are, generally, present in academic discourses in the form of interpretivist theory. This theory is, in very basic terms, underpinned by epistemological assumptions that hold that the “truth” is in man. This is obviously the dialectical opposite (the antithesis) of the classic modernist view that the “truth” is out there somewhere. In short; man creates knowledge, s/he does not discover it… in the Cartesian sense.

These two theoretical perspectives were the main combatants in the so-called Paradigm Wars, as initiated by Thomas Kuhn – in lieu of his relativization of (a single) Truth. It suffices to say that a compromise, a synthesis, has been found after the fog of battle has cleared, namely, sociocultural theory. This theory, albeit a synthesis, is inherently antithetical (to the liberal race narrative) because it emphasises collective agency. Meaning that conservative thinkers would be well-advised to use it as a truth-validating method/ology to counter the emphasis on individual agency, as espoused by liberals. In short; sociocultural theory has the potential to become a marvellous instrument of/for exposing “untruths” in the irrational universe of liberal discourses on race.

To the trickier one, emotionality: what is the antithesis of emotionality? As mentioned in the introductory paragraphs of this column, cold hard scientific facts are unable to function as untruths in the wacky irrational universe inhabited by (most) white liberals. Could indifference be the antithesis of emotionality? This seems to be happening in the public sphere… where the normal white conservative citizenry is becoming increasingly immune to the incessant screams of “Racist, Hater, and Nazi baby-seal clubber!” by bleeding-heart white liberals.

It is as if indifference has become a potent weapon in the fight against the emotion-laden zealotry of the white liberal establishment in the public sphere. But now the question obviously is; how does one colloquialize indifference into solid academic theory with which to counter the still dominant left-wing narrative on race-related issues?

I can only think of one school of (Western) philosophy that was passionate about indifference (pun intended): Stoicism. Maybe therefore a re-evaluation of Stoicism could assist in developing the necessary theoretical foundations from which to utilise indifference as weapon – alongside sociocultual theory – with which to expose untruths in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Stoicism was, after all, the moral backbone of the old British Empire… which, as we know, was very successful. So why not try a winning recipe…?

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

  • Stoicism was also the backbone of patrician Rome. Vergil’s Bucolics were translated by T.J. Haarhoff into Afrikaans in the 1930s under the title, “Die Romeinse boer” (The Roman Boer).

    I have also thought for a while now that returning to some form of simple, ascetic life with few possessions, but lots of learning, discipline and patriotism will save us amid this New Babylon.

    Paul Kruger was also a Stoic. He was unmoved even in battle and when others drank champagne to celebrate, he preferred a glass of milk. He always cautioned against excess.

    • Willem De Jager

      Verseker! Die prent hieronder van Tolstoy laat altyd by my daardie idee van stoisynse vryheid.

      Ek stel noudie dag aan ‘n vriend voor dat ons vroeg aftree en avonturiers word. Sy voorbehoud was dat ons dit kaal gaan moet doen aangesien ons nie klere gaan kan bekostig nie. En meteens het my goeie vriend en suksesvolle professionele persoon vir my soos ‘n hamster op ‘n wiel gelyk. Ek het gewonder of dit nodig is om 30 jaar x 300 dae jou af te sloof vir iets so oninspirerend soos klere.

      Ons nieuw stoisisme sal natuurlik o.a. die voordele he van sonkrag-tegnologie en ultra-effektiewe vervoerstelsels.

      • Guest

        Your friend is silly to want to get noticed. Clothes actually last quite long if they are worn for usefulness. Nothing wrong with a well-washed set and above all it does not attract much attention from crazed drug/shopping addicts

  • Götterdammerung

    Funny that all philosophy schools were closed due to the their “pagan” character being at odds with the Christian faith yet some of the largest characters in recent history – the American settlers, the British Empire, the VOC, the Boer were all extremely religious yet Stoic. More recently the people from Oriental descent – South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese et al – are all Stoic in nature. When Stoicism was at its peak in the Western Civilisation there was progress in arts, culture, science, economics but the moment nihilism took a foothold – especially since the invention of Political Correctness – Western Society fundamentally changed with Cultural Marxism now being its biggest downfall. Yet in the Far East – where Stoicism is alive and well – the progress of these societies are breath taking, the technical revolutions and prosperity being manufactured are awe inspiring.

    • Albert Brenner

      “the American settlers, the British Empire, the VOC, the Boer were all extremely religious yet Stoic.“

      100%. Stoicism (like Buddism) can function wonderfully as a lesser “code of ethics“ under Christianity.

  • Saamprater

    The “spirit” of Stoicism is at the core of the problem Afrikaners failed to identify and rectify. It killed our churches and we as a nation.
    The Brits only subjugated nations and peoples for their own gain, and this “spirit” was rife among them,and again, the Afrikaner failed to realized this in time and do something with it. Those who realized this fought them alone and those who was left behind, fought one another.
    Reconciliation between the Afrikaner people can and never happen as long as we are impregnated with the “spirit” of Stoicism.
    Ask the Greeks, Romans and all so called world superpowers what went wrong and only if they are honest, they will acknowledge that Stoicism as a way of life kills families, churches, nations.

    • Götterdammerung

      I do not agree – nihilism kills nations and societies. The Frankfurt School had it its very epicentre the ideology of breaking down churches, families, nations, borders, morals, ethics and independent thought through the use of brainwashed nihilists – or as they like to call themselves, Liberals. Today we call it Cultural Marxism and THAT is what is killing Western Civilisation – not Stoicism. Liberalism in its current form (Lenin described them as “useful idiots”) is the anti-thesis of Stoicism and is all about the “feel good” ideology of “mankind is all the same” when the opposite is proven on a daily basis yet they are dictating to all and sundry how life must be lived, thoughts that can and cannot be thought and what can and cannot be said.

    • Gas

      Countering Brenner’s brilliant piece? You’ll need arguments. “I say so” from “Saamprater” won’t do. Actually “Saamprater” already fcuked you

    • Albert Brenner

      Do follow the link below. It is a very good introduction to Stoicism. Pay careful attention to the aspect of virtue.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entr

  • Boerseun.Z.A.R

    Yip,its all about strategy.

  • Shannon

    Humans are fallible and Stoics are humans. One of the more prominent failures of Stoics was their indifference to the plight of others. In summation their philosophy was not even a philosophy. it was merely a selfish credo – “If ’tis well with me, it is well”

    Communists love Stoics, they tend not to interfere.

    • Boerseun.Z.A.R

      “If you are distressed by anything external,the pain is not due to the thing itself,but to your estimate of it,& this you have the power to revoke at any moment”
      Marcus Aurelius~Meditations.

      “It is the power of the mind to be unconquerable”
      Lucius Annaeus Seneca:the stoic philosophy of Seneca.Essays.

      • Shannon

        So if I slide a pineapple up your rear end you are screaming not because of the pineapple itself but because of the fact that you know it’s a pineapple ?

        On another note, despondency enters the mind when you realize that you can in fact not remove the invader at will. You are now stuck with it and a half baked musing posing as a philosophy.

        • Boerseun.Z.A.R

          Pathetic analogy.

          • Götterdammerung

            In typical Shannon fashion

        • Guest

          Why are you so jealous of Afrikaners?

        • Boere Trots

          O Vrek,
          Tipies Libtert,
          Jy moet Schutte wees, alles van julle libterte moet mos iets met daardie plekke van julle te doen he.
          Gaan hou jou tog besig met Schutte se gemors – jy sal vind dit is so in jou kraal.
          Wat is jou volgende voorstel – n gordel met n pyp aan?

    • Albert Brenner

      Do follow the link below. It is a very good introduction to Stoicism. Pay careful attention to the aspect of virtue.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

      • Shannon

        Thanx so much for the this Ism 101 link. Yes I’ve gone over it some time ago. Came to the conclusion that this particular ism is noting other than yet another definition of fundamentalist religionistas.
        Their virtuousness is based on the ‘sage’ concept and a conviction that life is so simple that, in all calamities, there are only two poles – the absolute correct one and the absolute incorrect one. Consequently, as a stoic sage, you would recognize immediately the better pole – no prize for guessing which one – and thus be able to distance yourself from it and all consequences thereof.

        Stoicism is valid only in as far as it’s correspondence with common sense. You would not involve yourself with every single bugger up due mostly to stupidity or malice. That is common sense. If you wish to make it sound fancy you could call it Stoicism.
        If however you reflect on the complex circumstances of our planet then Stoicism’s virtues are simply an adherence to a non-complex frame of reference.

        • Albert Brenner

          “…there are only two poles – the absolute correct one and the absolute incorrect one.”

          A finer reading of said link should have revealed that the ontology of Stoicism is not purely dichotomous…given that the emphasis on free will (vis a vis its epistemology) negates adherence to zealotry…in terms of virtue.

          The essence of (classic) Stoicism lies in its recognition that the only free “choice” that man has, is to choose the time and manner of his/her death…if fate allows. This is 100% logical, for nobody asked (decided) to be born, in the first place.

          From this flows a VOLUNTARY code of ethics, and commensurate “lifestyle”, freely chosen by the Stoic. The specific conscious choice of the above-mentioned contains all the complexities characterizing virtually all others modes and spheres of reflective being. Meaning that Stoics have to navigate, and adhere to, the SAME ever-present “COMPLEX frame of reference”, as others, be they atheists, Buddists, or Lady Gagaists, etc.

          To call the above-mentioned self-regulative process “non-complex” is very simplistic.

          I do however agree that certain aspects of Stoicism can be interpreted as exercises of/in “common sense”… but then Homer Simpson also displays said sense… sometimes.

          • Shannon

            Homer Simpson a Stoic ?! Yea OK.

            My point, Albert, about supposed Stoics is not the criticism of the underlying theory and philosophy so much. It is directed at the manner in which fallible humans use it as cover for their natural tendency to be indifferent. Today, you see exactly that among Afrikaners by the way (not withstanding the fact that many other people also suffer from the same head-up-the ar.e syndrome).

            Ie. It’s one thing to state that – after you’d been struck in the face – it is but fleeting and as such it will have no effect on your composure. Therefore, in sage-like fashion, you refrain from reacting. But then another blow – this time to the groin. And then, as you go for cover another two to the head. Suddenly your composure is lost and you realize “Hang on, I’m fulla sh|t ! I’m under attack ! Better become less precious”

            As further illustration I sucked the following out of my own thumb :

            Q : “How many Stoics does it take to screw in a light bulb”
            A : “Ultimately, whether there is light or not matters not”

            Q : “Why did the chicken cross the road ?”
            A : “It is of no concern to you or me. Crossing the road is in your power, the fact that the chicken crosses the road is not”

            Q : “Why do you rip other people’s jokes off the web and then claim it as your own ?”
            A : “Ahh, but the means hallows the goal. Do not fret over dishonesty if wisdom is gained” etc. etc. etc.

          • Guest

            The old myth of British rectitude, imperial in origin, unwittingly exposed by our own dumpster queen! Struggling as ever to master irony, showering us instead with bitter taunts, the poor creature can only ever manage crude and contemptuous. Why are you insisting on being so inferior? An inalienable part of your identity perhaps?

  • Johann Theron

    Thank you for a very good article, especially the reference to socioculture. A successful commercial methodology has emerged to enhance part of it, here in SA of all places. Would like your assessment on it perhaps.

    Now for that article on our emotional churches.

    • Albert Brenner

      Do follow the link I placed to sociocultural theory. You`ll see it is (still) confined to the wonderful discipline of education research.

      • Johann Theron

        I view it more as engagement which is perhaps similar, see Blu-prints.

        • Albert Brenner

          Re. Blu-prints.The democratization of knowledge (like Wikipedia, too) as a form of “engagement“ is not the same as knowledge creation via a spesific theoretical viewpoint.

          But if you like “engagement“ as a virtue in research, have a look at action research based on Critical theory.

  • Willem De Jager

    One way of demonstrating our complete indifference to the Sadists’ Apocalypse (a term effectively colloquialised elsewhere in this forum) might be to take back our power to decide upon the core issues that affect us. We need to exit this system which feeds on the irrational and fear. Like Albert points out, they can (and do) “prove” anything “scientifically”, depending on the agenda and the source of funding. We need to start treating the constitution withe the same derision that they themselves treat it with. Somehow we’re still under the spell of the rule of law but at our own peril.

    Dan, tweedens, nadat ons onsself van die juk van die nieu-Anglo Ryk vrygemaak het, gaan beset ons Monumentkop met ons katedraal reeds in plek en proklameer ons eie San Marino of Andorra (small is beautiful). Daar’s nog ruimte vir uitbreiding ook in daardie deel van die stad. En ons laat vir Mammon in Menlyn agter!