infinitysisters

[infinitysisters]

"Over the past decade, we’ve grown ever more concerned about dubious strains of social-justice advocacy infiltrating medicine. Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, doctors’ pursuit of social reform coalesced, almost overnight, into a mission.

Within a week of Floyd’s death, for example, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which is a co-sponsor of a major accrediting body, announced that the nation’s 155 medical schools “must employ antiracist and unconscious bias training and engage in interracial dialogues.” A year later (and again in 2024), the American Medical Association released a Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity that encouraged physicians to dismantle “white patriarchy and other systems of oppression.” Over two dozen medical schools issued their own similar plans.

Medical students are now immersed in the notion that undertaking political advocacy is as important as learning gross anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology.

Researchers are promoting unscientific modes of thinking about group-based disparities in health access and status. The University of Minnesota’s Center for Antiracism Research for Health Equity decrees “structural racism as a fundamental cause of health inequities,” despite the fact that this is at best an arguable thesis, not a fact. (The center was shut down last month.) The Kaiser Family Foundation states that health differentials “stem from broader social and economic inequities.”

In what borders on compelled speech, the State University of New York’s Upstate Medical University issued a 164-page report from a diversity task force insisting that “Health care professionals must explicitly acknowledge that race and racism are at the root of [Black-white] health disparities.” Other variables influencing the course of chronic disease, prominently the patient’s health literacy and self-care, receive scant attention.

Perhaps the most dramatic recent display of ideological intrusion into the medical sphere took place last June at the UCSF Medical Center, where keffiyeh-draped doctors gathered on the grounds to demand that their institution call for a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. Their chants of “intifada, intifada, long live intifada!” echoed into patients’ rooms.

These doctors were not putting patients first — if anything, they were offending and intimidating patients. They were putting their notion of social justice first.

As doctors, we believe that it is enough for us to demand of ourselves that we be good at taking care of patients. But for individual doctors who wish to responsibly leverage their professional standing to effect political change, we propose three guidelines. They should advocate for policies that 1) directly help patients and 2) are rooted in professional expertise, while 3) ensuring that their advocacy does not interfere with their relationships with their colleagues, students, and patients.

First, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡. “Dismantling white patriarchy and other systems of oppression” is not an actionable goal. Our primary job is to diagnose and treat, and to do no harm in the process. We have no expertise in redistributing power and wealth. Even seasoned policy analysts cannot readily tease out strong causal links between health and economic and social factors that lie upstream.

We do not deny that much of the health disadvantage suffered by minority groups is the cumulative product of legal, political, and social institutions that historically discriminated against them. But past discrimination is not necessarily a factor sustaining those problems now. We must address the discrete causes that operate today.

Second, 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬’ 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐎𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜. Medical professionals will, of course, have their own views of the public good. They are free to take to the barricades as citizens — but not while wearing their white coats.

Third, 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐞’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫, 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞.

The faculty must also protect medical students’ education, an imperative complicated by advocacy, which seeks change rather than knowledge. Taking strong political stands at work also risks alienating trainees and colleagues with whom faculty members must collaborate in caring for patients. Trainees who hold different political views may withhold their opinions out of concern for their career prospects.

👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 — 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭-𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬 — 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬...👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼

A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐨𝐩-𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲-𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬.

👉🏼 👉🏼 👉🏼Our profession appears to confront a growing paradox. 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝. 𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬��𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐬𝐨 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧."👈🏼 👈🏼 👈🏼

——

𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭, 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘚. 𝘏𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘌𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯

[infinitysisters]

Aristotle, 4th century BC

Politics, Book 5, section 1314a

“And it is a mark of a tyrant to dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the tyrant claims for himself alone the right to bear that character, and the man who meets his pride with pride and shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of mastery; tyrants therefore hate the proud as undermining their authority.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐲𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐦.

These and similar habits are characteristic of tyrants and preservative of their office, but they lack no element of baseness.

And broadly speaking, they are all included under three heads; for tyranny aims at three things:

First to keep its subjects humble - for a humble-spirited man would not plot against anybody,

Second to have them continually distrust one another - for a tyranny is not destroyed until some men come to trust each other, owing to which tyrants also make war on the respectable, as detrimental to their rule not only because of their refusal to submit to despotic rule, but also because they are faithful to one another and to the other citizens, and do not inform against one another nor against the others;

Third is lack of power for political action - since nobody attempts impossibilities, so that nobody tries to put down a tyranny if he has not power behind him.”

[infinitysisters]

[infinitysisters]

My art & crafts project Les Kreatures recently did a thing. A 3riple album of dubwise bassy spacey techy electro disco trip hop concrète.

[infinitysisters]

Often it takes those from outside our countries coming in to see not only our ignorance that comes from the bigotry of xenophobia, but moreso in the current era, the bigotry of sentimental, pseudo intellectual suicidal empathy perverted into oikophobia. The latter is most common among the historically "Christian" west.

This attitude is always attractive to the native born educated privileged bc the enlightened global citizen heart that transcends the unglamorous, distinction-making duty of preserving nationhood always feels so virtuous and compassionate when it talks to itself, meanwhile, beginning with the decimation of the working classes (made up of many races), our nations' self-destruct from within due to neglect/avoidance of basic things that require vigilence, common sense, & fully engaged courage & love of one own shared culture & heritage contra "the world."

Its the same process one goes through when they forsake living as if life is an eternal Friends episode and get into the business of raising a family, owning property, & providing for their own "national interest". The love & compassion remains, but it grows up & becomes real through "forsaking all others" 💍 👉🏼focus👈🏼 & piroritization of one's own household vs. everything and everybody else. A bunch of people from all walks of life and socioeconomic conditions doing this in a specific geographical region is what a nation consists of.

This ofc introduces a tension to a globalist's compassionate heart, but it's a tension to embrace & live through instead of despising it and casting it aside in a sea of highminded prose. This is why in the Bible, we are told to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt 22:37) AT THE SAME TIME that we are told that "whoever does not provide for his immediate family is WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER, he has denied the faith." (1 Tim 5:8).

The blindspot, as many immigrants who often sacrifice life & limb to come to the West see clearly, is that the very things that the over educated natives take for granted, defining as heartless decision making ala their favorite "ism" words, are the very things that have allowed the good things to exist that immigrants come here for in the first place, which is why so many are often shocked at how ambivalent we natives are about what it takes in the real world to maintain & preserve these blessings. Things like democratic process, rule of law, freedom of speech, social mobility, productive economies & infrastructure, generational wealth, et al.

As the late, brilliant, Roger Scruton wrote:

"The seeming loss of national loyalty is a feature of our political élites … who have repudiated the national idea…

No adequate word exists for this attitude, though its symptoms are instantly recognised: namely, the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours’.

Being the opposite of xenophobia I propose to call this state of mind oikophobia, by which I mean (stretching the Greek a little) the repudiation of inheritance and home.

𝐎𝐢𝐤𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞—𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲—𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝.

As George Orwell pointed out, intellectuals on the Left are especially prone to it, and this has often made them willing agents of foreign powers."

＿＿

Roger Scruton, England and the Need for Nations

[infinitysisters]

[infinitysisters]

"I criticize elites a lot. But I have nothing against "elites" as a category. I'm not a communist (though even communist regimes had elites; funny how that works).

𝐌𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡, 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦.

👉🏼𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬 𝐒𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭, 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲.👈🏼

Peter Turchin in "End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites and The Path of Political Disintegration" has written:

“𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬—𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬—𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥. 𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦; 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥.”

There's nothing wrong with elites, and every functioning (and non-functioning) society has elites and needs elites. If you tried to depose the existing elites, other elites or aspirational elites would simply replace them.

I’m not against elites. I just wish we had better elites, that's all."

＿＿＿

Ron Henderson

[infinitysisters]

"The truth is not simply that words originally innocent tend to acquire a bad sense. The truth is that words originally descriptive tend to become terms either of mere praise or of mere blame.

The vocabulary of flattery and insult is continually enlarged at the expense of the vocabulary of definition. As old horses go to the knacker's yard, or old ships to the breakers, so words in their last decay go to swell the enormous list of synonyms for good and bad.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞

This process is going on very rapidly at the moment. The words 'abstract' and 'concrete' were first coined to express a distinction which is really necessary to thought: but it is only for the very highly educated that they still do so.

In popular language 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘦 now means something like "clearly defined and practicable"; it has become a term of praise.

𝘈𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 means "vague, shadowy, unsubstantial"; it has become a term of reproach.

𝘔𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯, in the mouths of many speakers, has ceased to be a chronological term ; it has "sunk into a good sense" and often means little more than "efficient" or in some contexts "kind" ;

𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 can no longer be used in its proper sense without explanation.

𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 is a mere term of approval;

To save any word from the eulogistic and dyslogistic abyss is a task worth the efforts of all who love the English language. And I can think of one word—the word 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯—which is at this moment on the brink.

That is always the trouble about allowing words to slip into the abyss. Once turn 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 into a mere insult, and you need a new word (pig) when you want to talk about the animal. Once let 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮 dwindle into a useless synonym for cruelty, and what do you do when you have to refer to the highly special perversion which actually afflicted M. de Sade?

It is important to notice that the danger to the word "Christian" comes not from its open enemies, but from its friends.

It was not egalitarians, it was officious admirers of gentility, who killed the word 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯. The other day I had occasion to say that certain people were not Christians; a critic asked how I dared say so, being unable (as of course I am) to read their hearts. I had used the word to mean "persons who profess belief in the specific doctrines of Christianity"; my critic wanted me to use it in what he would (rightly) call "a far deeper sense"—a sense so deep that no human observer can tell to whom it applies.

And is that deeper sense not more important? It is indeed ; just as it was more important to be a "real" gentleman than to have coat-armour. But the most important sense of a word is not always the most useful. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝'𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

And when, however reverently, you have killed a word you have also, as far as in you lay, blotted from the human mind the thing that word originally stood for.

𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲."

＿＿＿＿

C.S. Lewis, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴

September 22, 1944

[infinitysisters]

“𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐮𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐨 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨.

I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins.

Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic...Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured.

𝐇𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬.

This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.”

—

C.S. Lewis

[infinitysisters]

This was a good one from back in the day.

https://soundcloud.com/tefonik/break-yoself-foo-mix

Repostin’ dat funk. :-) 1 Cute little French girl - a story 2 Anna Caragnano & Donato Dozzy - Parola 3 Peter Kruder - Law of Return 4 Childish Gambino - Sober (Oliver Nelson Remix) 5 Angel D & Daniele Petronelli - Iko Iko (Min & Mal Remix) 6 Blackstreet - No Diggity (The Polish Ambassador Remix) 7 Bassbin Twins - Zapped 8 Krafty Kuts vs.La Roux - Bulletproof (Tepr mix/Krafty Kuts re-rub) 9 Madeon - Pay No Mind feat. Passion Pit (Lemaitre Remix) 10 Meat Beat Manifesto - God OD (Jonah Sharp mix) 11 Kerri Chandler - Planet Sonic 12 Tokyo Machine - PARTY パーティー 13 Booka Shade - Body Language (Adrian Funk Remix) 14 Cute lil’ French girl - a story (reprise)

[infinitysisters]

“My case is not that the nation state is the only answer to the problems of modern government, but that it is the only answer that has proved itself.

We may feel tempted to experiment with other forms of political order. But experiments on this scale are dangerous, since nobody knows how to predict or to reverse their results.

The French, Russian, and Nazi Revolutions were bold experiments; but in each case they led to the collapse of legal order, to mass murder at home, and to belligerence abroad.

The wise policy is to accept the arrangements, however imperfect, that have evolved through custom and inheritance, to improve them by small adjustments, but not to jeopardize them by large-scale alterations the consequences of which nobody can really envisage.

The case for this approach was unanswerably set before us by Burke in his Reflections on the French Revolution, and subsequent history has repeatedly confirmed his view of things.

The lesson that we should draw, therefore, is that since the nation state has proved to be a stable foundation of democratic government and a secular jurisdiction, we ought to improve it, to adjust it, even to dilute it, but not to throw it away."

— Roger Scruton

[infinitysisters]

Yuri Pimenov - Spring Window (1948)

[infinitysisters]

“The life of man is a story; an adventure story; and in our vision the same is true even of the story of God.

…𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐲.

It is a story and in that sense one of a hundred stories; only it is a true story.

It is a philosophy and in that sense one of a hundred philosophies; only it is a philosophy that is like life.

But above all, it is a reconciliation because it is something that can only be called the philosophy of stories.

That normal narrative instinct which produced all the fairy tales is something that is neglected by all the philosophies—𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞. The Faith is the justification of that popular instinct; 👉🏼the finding of a philosophy for it or the analysis of the philosophy in it.👈🏼

Exactly as a man in an adventure story has to pass various tests to save his life, so the man in this philosophy has to pass several tests and save his soul.

In both there is an idea of 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧; in other words, there is an aim and it is the business of a man to aim at it; we therefore watch to see whether he will hit it.

Now this deep and democratic and dramatic instinct is derided and dismissed in all the other philosophies. For all the other philosophies avowedly end where they begin; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲; 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫.

From Buddha and his wheel to Akhen Aten and his disc, from Pythagoras with his abstraction of number to Confucius with his religion of routine, there is not one of them that does not in some way sin against the soul of a story.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞; 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧.

Each of them starves the story-telling instinct, so to speak, and does something to spoil 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞; either by fatalism (pessimist or optimist) and that destiny that is the death of adventure; or by indifference and that detachment that is the death of drama; or by a fundamental scepticism that dissolves the actors into atoms; or by a materialistic limitation blocking the vista of moral consequences; or a mechanical recurrence making even moral tests monotonous; or a bottomless relativity making even practical tests insecure.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲; but there is no such thing as a Hegelian story or a Monist story or a relativist story or a determinist story; for every story, yes, even a penny dreadful or a cheap novelette, has something in it that belongs to our universe and not theirs.

🔑Every short story does truly begin with creation and end with a last judgement.🔑”

G.K. Chesterton,

The Everlasting Man (1925)

[infinitysisters]

Asi es.

[infinitysisters]

“BLAKE WROTE the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If I have written of their Divorce, this is not because I think myself a fit antagonist for so great a genius, nor even because I feel at all sure that I know what he meant. But in some sense or other the attempt to make that marriage is perennial.

The attempt is based on the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable "either-or"; that, granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain.

This belief I take to be a disastrous error. You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys; on one journey even your right hand and your right eye may be among the things you have to leave behind.

We are not living in a world where all roads are radii of a circle and where all, if followed long enough, will therefore draw gradually nearer and finally meet at the centre: rather in a world where every road, after a few miles, forks into two, and each of those into two again, and at each fork you must make a decision.

Even on the biological level life is not like a pool but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes continually more different not only from evil but from other good.

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.

Evil can be undone, but it cannot "develop" into good. Time does not heal it. The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, "with backward mutters of dissevering power"-or else not. It is still "either-or." If we insist on keeping Hell (or even earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell.

I believe, to be sure, that any man who reaches Heaven will find that what he abandoned (even in plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing: that the kernel of what he was really seeking even in his most depraved wishes will be there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in "the High Countries."

In that sense it will be true for those who have completed the journey (and for no others) to say that good is everything and Heaven everywhere. But we, at this end of the road, must not try to anticipate that retrospective vision. If we do, we are likely to embrace the false and disastrous converse and fancy that everything is good and everywhere is Heaven.

But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.”

C.S. Lewis, preface to The Great Divorce

[infinitysisters]

[infinitysisters]

“Government is a search for order, and for power only in so far as power is required by order.

It is present in the family, in the free associations of neighbours, and in the ‘little platoons’ extolled by Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the French Revolution and by Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America.

It is there in the first movement of affection and good will, from which the bonds of society grow. For it is simply the other side of freedom, and the thing that makes freedom possible.”