After Li Po While my hair was still cut straight across my forehead I played at the front gate, pulling flowers. You came by on bamboo stilts, playing horse, You walked about my seat, playing with blue plums. And we went on living in the village of Chokan: Two small people, without dislike or suspicion. At fourteen I married My Lord you. I never laughed, being bashful. Lowering my head, I looked at the wall. Called to, a thousand times, I never looked back. At fifteen I stopped scowling, I desired my dust to be mingled with yours Forever and forever and forever. Why should I climb the lookout? At sixteen you departed, You went into far Ku-to-en, by the river of swirling eddies, And you have been gone five months. The monkeys make sorrowful noise overhead. You dragged your feet when you went out, By the gate now, the moss is grown, the different mosses, Too deep to clear them away! The leaves fall early this autumn, in wind. The paired butterflies are already yellow with August Over the grass in the West garden; They hurt me. I grow older. If you are coming down through the narrows of the river Kiang, Please let me know beforehand, And I will come out to meet you As far as Cho-fu-sa.
Originally posted on Niqnaq:
View original 497 more words
Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End
IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man’s morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled “Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes.” Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889). It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:
If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally “good” and what is bad for that purpose is finally “evil.”
If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on “that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution.” If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature’s method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes “that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so.” Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.
The late Dr. Edward Westermarck, a profound student of morality and of evolutionary method, regarded man’s search for a final purpose as an outstanding example of human weakness and vanity. In Memories of My Life (1929), he relates how
three of his women students at the London School of Economics came to him and put this question: “Why are we here?” He replied: “Such a question should not be asked; here we are, and cannot alter it; questions which cannot be answered should not be asked.” Wherein Dr. Westermarck revealed that, although he had mastered human morality, he remained ignorant of human nature. Since ever man became a conscious being he has asked this question, and will continue to demand an answer to the end of time. The Westminster divines who were assembled at Westminster by Charles I were not afraid to ask the question, and also to answer it. They made it the first question of the Shorter Catechism, “What is man’s chief end?” and replied: “To glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” As far back as I can remember, I was word perfect in that question and its answer. Even today, after brooding for a long lifetime over the explanation given by the divines of why I am here, I have failed to master the full meaning of its words. If such is a true answer to the question, then why has man been given a nature which is so incapable of fulfilling such a mode of life? No human community could observe this injunction with any degree of strictness, not even one day in seven, and survive on this earth as we know it. No; the “chief end” cannot be as the Westminster divines formulated it.
Then there is the explanation given by St. Augustine. According to this father of the Church we have been sent into the world to make it into a “City of God,” to bring all mankind under the beneficent law of Christ, to establish a perpetual reign of peace, and ultimately to provide the Creator with an abundant harvest of human souls. The Church has been seeking to establish such a City for well nigh two thousand years. Why has St. Augustine’s science made so little headway up to this present time? Is it not because human mentality is so aptly fitted to carry out the law of evolution, and so ill framed to carry out the law of Christ? If St. Augustine’s scheme had been also that of Nature, then she would have fashioned the instinctive basis of human mentality in conformity with the Augustinian scheme; it is axiomatic in the making of human laws that they must be framed in conformity with human nature if their observance is to be secured. We can scarcely suppose that this elementary consideration was overlooked when Nature’s evolutionary scheme of things was established.
Let us look for a moment at what Dr. Julian Huxley has to say about “Divine Purpose.” In his latest work, Evolution (Harper, 1942, p. 576), we find the following passage:
The purpose manifested in evolution, whether in adaptation, specialization, or biological progress, is only an apparent purpose. lt is just as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. It is we who have read purpose into evolution, as earlier men projected will and emotion into inorganic phenomena like storm or earthquake. If we wish to work towards a purpose for the future of man, we must formulate that purpose ourselves. Purposes in life are made, not found.
In brief, man’s appearance on earth is accidental, not purposive.1 Now, I admit at once that there is a certain amount of truth in Julian Huxley’s contention, but it is not the whole truth. Let us take a concrete illustration. Early in the eighth century B.C. certain local tribal communities on the banks of the Tiber became consolidated, built a city, and began to bring neighboring rival tribes and communities into subjection. Every move produced unforeseen opportunities, which may be regarded as the result of accident or chance; such opportunities the Romans seized and utilized. The purpose of securing a safe frontier was continued for eight centuries, and the Roman Empire came into existence. Was the growth of the Empire accidental or purposive? It was both; as events happened they were utilized by the Roman intellect for a purpose. To take another example: yesterday I was stung by a wasp; my enemy no doubt acted reflexly and unconsciously, nevertheless purposively, for I was driven from its nest; and the sting and poison bag seemed to me cleverly adapted for their purpose, whether the sharp thrusting sting came into existence in a planless scheme of evolution or not. Evolution cannot be planless for this reason. Living protoplasm, even in its simplest form, is purposive; unless it can absorb food, assimilate it, turn it into energy, rid itself of by-products, and reproduce itself, it cannot live. I feel certain that sooner or later it will be found that the “genes” themselves, which determine us body and soul, are really physiological and therefore purposive in their action. Nature, in short, is fundamentally purposive in all its doings.
Benjamin Opratko describes today’s power structure quite accurately, so this is worthwhile. He is however a product of a post WWII European educational system which means he has been indoctrinated with the Neo Liberal morality that manifests itself in the belief of being an anti-racist, antifascist and in gender neutrality. Morality has become a weapon of the power structure. It is their weapon against reality. To be a racist is to acknowledge racial differences, this is a healthy natural observation. As far as being antifascist well a fascist is like a terrorist, it depends on whose side he’s on. Certainly the Neo Liberals Opratko is describing are fascist from my point of view. And quite frankly anyone who can not see or refuses to see that the vast majority of women are natural child rearers is simply out of touch with reality.
Pay attention to how the NL took public discontent and molded it into a movement which supported their power. Here in the U.S. it took form as NeoCons.
You want to fight the power structure?…form a strong traditional family. Raise children to respect and trust their parents.
this is a very revealing clip. It’s the one I link to below but since I found it on youtube I will put it up. Youtube won’t take this one off because the jewish narrative reigns.
There needs to be an honest open discussion about the holocaust and about the genocide of American Indians. These are two very politically correct versions of history.
Let the Jews pay reparations for their slandering of the Germans
I see youtube is censoring, no surprise. You can see the video here:
The truth is the Germans wanted the Jew out of Germany. There were no gassings or any plans to murder Jews. The camps were transit camps and labor camps. Gentiles sent to the camps were there for punishment or re-education which is how our prisons operate. The vast majority of Jews that died under the Germans (something around 300,000) died as a consequence of Allied bombing. The Holocaust is really the Big Lie. Once people understand the truth then the Jews lose their means of guilting Westerners into doing “what’s good for the Jew”. You will notice that so many of the “good” Jews that wring their hands over the Palestinians and worry about illegal immigration in the West, hold fast to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the Jew’s leverage. Have a look at the video I link to below. Note Phil Weiss and Jeff Blankfort’s guilt tripping Westerners, that is Whites. Phil goes so far as saying that the West owes the Jews. I think he’s got it ass backwards. I’m all for Truth, but I want the Whole Truth. Note how those open minded Jews refuse the woman’s response at the very end.