Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

[Immanuel Can]

I submitted Jayda's case because it seems poignant to me. I would like to know how others think about this. What are your comments on her situation?

Well, if it's all as presented, it's horrendous, of course.

Re: Catholicism vs Protestantism: an interesting conversation could ensue, no doubt, and you could explain your Catholic-critical position (as I assume you have).

As it happens, I am not a Catholic, but I am not mounting a criticism of the Catholic church. I'm really just trying to say that in Europe there are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, do not identify as Catholic, whose ancestors didn't, and who never really will: so Belloc's net is now very small. And what he says is really not true: Europe is not Catholicism, and Catholicism isn't Europe.

I'm not hunting for Catholics. I'm just taking issue with Belloc. That's all.

If you are not a Christian Universalist, how would you define yourself? I am deliberately trying to be a European Christian. I have a reason for thinking in specific terms. If you are interested, that can be talked about.

I define myself simply as a Christian. I'm not a universalist, and I don't believe in identity-group politics.

So, you seem to be speaking of interior work. It is a different domain than that of 'meta-politics'.

Only at first. The larger political involvements are possible, but only once one has sorted out oneself. The difference is which end you grab the problem: at the politics end or at the personal end. I would argue that the personal comes first, and then the political. Activists generally pay no attention to their own moral and spiritual condition at all, and focus on criticizing everyone else's and trying to change the larger political mechanisms. I'm saying that will prove utterly useless (and likely homicidal, if history has taught us anything) unless we start by changing ourselves personally.

The primary problems are spiritual and personal: the political problems are merely a large and dangerous manifestation of the inner pathologies of human beings. And you can see this is true. From where comes "the political"? It is a product purely of human engineering. So from where have the faults in it come? From the social engineers and inventors of the political forms. Why did these engineers do such faulty work? Because they were, themselves, filled with faults. Fallen human beings have engineered fallen political systems.

So the personal faults are the primary problem. Politics are only symptoms. And you can't fix the problem by merely addressing the symptoms. True, the symptoms must change: but they won't change in any profound way if we don't address ourselves to the root disease. They'll just come back, in a new form.

[Alizia]

It now seems to me that you use 'metaphysics' in the popular sense of 'supernatural'. I presumed that you would base your arguments on the standard basic theories of existence.

Were you to review any Googled page on the definition of metaphysics, you'd find many areas where my here-stated concerns intersect. So, no, I do not think my use of the world corresponds to the popular term 'supernatural', but I definitely would not exclude notions of what is 'super' to nature. Possibly, now that I am thinking about it, instead of 'popular' I might substitute 'practical'.

[Alizia]

Your mention of Jordan Peterson reminded me of this video. I do not submit this video as a refutation of what Peterson does, but perhaps only for a bit of what it suggests. The other reason is because I am still working with the theme of 'dangerous ideas' and I see this fellow 'Resurrection Europa' as operating in a 'dangerous' zone. I have become more open to the idea that Peterson represents 'diversion'. But that is 'opinion' since I have not read his books and only reviewed some of his talks and his famous fatherly 'spankings' of feminist woman journalists.

[Immanuel Can]

Your mention of Jordan Peterson reminded me of this video. I do not submit this video as a refutation of what Peterson does, but perhaps only for a bit of what it suggests. The other reason is because I am still working with the theme of 'dangerous ideas' and I see this fellow 'Resurrection Europa' as operating in a 'dangerous' zone. I have become more open to the idea that Peterson represents 'diversion'. But that is 'opinion' since I have not read his books and only reviewed some of his talks and his famous fatherly 'spankings' of feminist woman journalists.

Was this addressed to me? Might I suggest you use the "quote" feature to indicate the post to which you are responding? That way, the contributor receives a notice. That would be helpful to you, in sorting our who you get to respond.

Yeah, that "spankings" are good entertainment. But I'm only half on board with Dr. Peterson. I like some of what he says, but I find him too equivocal on some points. I'd like to sit down and have a chat with him someday, but that's not a present likelihood. I have questions to ask him.

[Alizia]

Well, if it's all as presented, it's horrendous, of course.

If it is not as it is presented, what is then being presented? And to what purpose? Do you pay attention to what is going on in Europe (and the other former English colonies) on meta-political levels?

I define myself simply as a Christian. I'm not a universalist, and I don't believe in identity-group politics.

You are free to define yourself as you wish, naturally. I think though that your definition is incomplete. There is no such thing, merely, as 'a Christian'. And definitely not when it comes to near infinite array of Protestant variations.

I am a universalist-of-sorts (a 'qualified universalist') and I definitely believe in self-definition along national, ethnic and racial lines. Therefore, I would define a Catholic or a Christian through taking all the factors of their being into consideration. I would not under any circumstances 'abstract' a person from their matrix nor do I believe in an abstracted Christianity. This is why I focus on Europe -- which is also (I thought this was obvious) -- a way to refer to white people and also to 'whiteness' (the term that is used to denigrate Whites). I see the need for definite measures to be taken to discover, augment, increase and empower European identity and I support those people and movements that are doing this. And I do this even if those who must carry out this work have not, to borrow your locution, 'cleaned up their room'. I do not in any sense deny working on oneself, but I think that two things, two domains of activity go hand-in-hand: internal work and external work.

So the personal faults are the primary problem. Politics are only symptoms. And you can't fix the problem by merely addressing the symptoms. True, the symptoms must change: but they won't change in any profound way if we don't address ourselves to the root disease. They'll just come back, in a new form.

Fair enough. I can see though that you cannot really have any interest, nor much to say, about the majority of the issues and problems that interest me and interest 'us'. I can accept that.

PS: Yes, I will use the 'quote' function all the time from now on.

I'll have to try to make it to London soon. I'd like to. I think I agree with the analysis that Paul Weston makes here. It supports and coincides with the view of Jayda.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if it's all as presented, it's horrendous, of course.

If it is not as it is presented, what is then being presented?

Hard to say. It's always good to add that proviso when trusting what one gets off YouTube, of course. I'm not criticizing her: I'm just not being more certain of the facts than I have reason to be.

There is no such thing, merely, as 'a Christian'.

In fact, I think that's all there is. I don't think the words "Catholic" or "Protestant," "Quaker" or "Methodist," or whatever have any standing in the Divine Mind. And thus, they have none for me. My goal is to follow Christ, not any clergy or tradition. And anyone who does likewise is fully entitled to call herself a "Christian."

But the other titles? Who made them up?

This is why I focus on Europe -- which is also (I thought this was obvious) -- a way to refer to white people and also to 'whiteness' (the term that is used to denigrate Whites).

This is collectivism. That's what I don't like about it. Collectivism has always been a disaster. And it will forever be.

As an ethicist, I understand that collectives cannot be ethically addressed. You'll find the same thing if you write a letter to "the government," or "the school system," or "the church." Collectives don't listen, and have no ethical response-mechanism. But if you write to your member of parliament personally, or to the principal of your school, or to your personal friend in the church, there's a good chance they'll listen and respond in some fashion.

"Europe" is a collectivist abstraction. It has no ears, no beliefs, no brain and no ethics. You cannot address it, and it will not respond. If there's anything to it, it's merely a deaf, amoral juggernaut. You can't look to it for salvation. "Europe" doesn't care. It's not even capable of "caring."

Individuals can be addressed with their ethical duties. Collectives...no. In a collective, no single person is ever responsible. And the collective itself is not response-able.

I do this even if those who must carry out this work have not, to borrow your locution, 'cleaned up their room'.

Then, if history is any indicator, you'll only produce a new kind of misery.

Fair enough. I can see though that you cannot really have any interest, nor much to say, about the majority of the issues and problems that interest me and interest 'us'. I can accept that.

That is not true. I am concerned about those issues. I'm simply saying that if you sincerely want to do something about them, then you're grabbing them at the wrong end, the end of collectivism instead of the individual.

We both want the situation fixed: we just think differently about what will fix it, it seems.

[Alizia]

I'm not criticizing her: I'm just not being more certain of the facts than I have reason to be.

The question resolves down to something rather simple: Is Britain being infiltrated and invaded (to use the hotter sorts of terms) by a cultural group that will supplant indigenous British? Is this a 'good' thing or is it a 'bad' thing, or should it be looked at in some other way? How did this situation come to be? Who put it in motion? (What policies, views, attitudes, idealisms, etc.) How can these situations be analyzed, understood, and addressed? Should they be? Or, should one go and 'clean one's room'?

I could proceed in this same vein in respect to a dozen other important existential questions. Whether my 'room is clean' or is half-clean is irrelevant.

In fact, I think that's all there is. I don't think the words "Catholic" or "Protestant," "Quaker" or "Methodist," or whatever have any standing in the Divine Mind. And thus, they have none for me. My goal is to follow Christ, not any clergy or tradition. And anyone who does likewise is fully entitled to call herself a "Christian."

I disagree substantially with you. If you suppose that 'the Divine Mind' cannot see in terms of categories, on what basis could you begin to defend the categorizing mind? Here, you seem to have made a significant error. I must assume that if there is a 'Divine Mind', and if I am made in the image of God, that what I do intellectually will mirror some part of what God is (instead of saying 'what God does') If you feel that you need to go into all sort of sophistical defenses here, have at it!

To see in terms of categories, to categorize, to hierarchize: these are crucial activities and areas as I see things.

There are huge differences between all the sorts of Christians that you just mentioned. You make an attempt to destroy the possibility of categorizing them and their differences. I am sure you have your reasons.

I flatly disagree with you when you assert -- a truth claim, nothing more -- that 'following Christ' could ever be that simple. You employ a reductionist tactic for reasons I am sure you could expand on. But the entire assertion seems -- to me -- to be falsely based. Nevertheless, please make no mistake: I respect whatever you have chosen to do and your reasons for doing so.

I am not interested in nullifying difference, nor in failing to distinguish it. Quite the opposite. My 'universalism' though kicks in (so to speak) when I notice that each person, and all people, may respond to the same larger assertion (in the 'logos' sense) in different ways. But by doing that, they show difference of interpretation. And I respect that.

Your view (IMO) may ultimately flatten difference. Not something I strive for. But, this is why I am part of the 'Movement' I am a part of: liberal systems 'flatten' and render everyone the same. We seek alternatives. I am not making this up. You could do your own research and you'd soon find it to be so.

"Europe" is a collectivist abstraction. It has no ears, no beliefs, no brain and no ethics. You cannot address it, and it will not respond. If there's anything to it, it's merely a deaf, amoral juggernaut. You can't look to it for salvation. "Europe" doesn't care. It's not even capable of "caring."

You have made it into such, but I do not mean it as such. You do this often. You take something that I say, interpret it according to your view, opinion or understanding, and then present it back as if this is what I meant. I have to spend time sorting through your reconstitution of what you suppose I am saying and this is frustrating. This paragraph, above, is not worth the time to confront it, dismantle it, and reconstitute what I have been trying to say. I am done with this topic then. OTOH, if you wish to approach what I have written more, say, constructively, that would be welcome. Up to you of course. No pressure!

Then, if history is any indicator, you'll only produce a new kind of misery.

A false, and even an underhanded assertion. Since I am not heading up some giant social program to say that I will create some new misery is absurd. I am content just getting clear about proper categories. It is an intellectual effort as the starting point. This corresponds to 'cleaning one's room'. And that is just about all the people I associate with are doing. For example, to discuss the problem of excessive immigration of a contrary people who are rapidly expanding. Just to be able to get clear if it is morally and ethically possible to define concern about this. We are told that it is not, and to have that concern is flatly evil. That is, 'replacement theory' as it is called. And how to go about confronting it ethically, responsibly.

What about something quite simple: the preservation of the valuation of Occidental classical-liberal educational categories such as our own Classics? The so-called Great Books? 'Our traditions'. The material upon which 'our cultures' have been built? All the people I know are reading deeply. We remain outside of 'misery' but perhaps I cannot distinguish how miserable we really are? [snark]

I could go on with a list. These are not abstractions. And they will not produce 'misery'.

We both want the situation fixed: we just think differently about what will fix it, it seems.

This could be so. And I assert that it is necessary to move out of the mind-set that you have presented, the reduction of 'cleaning your room', to understanding 'the room' as the world of our own societies. And to understand that what is 'messing the room' needs to be described and categorized -- carefully and responsibly -- and this needs to be done while the work is on-going.

I would rather not haggle over this. I have submitted a whole bunch of different information in my writing and in some videos. Do you have any specific commentary about any of that?

[Immanuel Can]

The question resolves down to something rather simple: Is Britain being infiltrated and invaded (to use the hotter sorts of terms) by a cultural group that will supplant indigenous British?

Sure it is. Just as the Danes did it. And the Romans did it. And the French did it. Each time, a new "England" was created, but a lot of people died. And that's not good, as I'm sure you'll agree. Invasions are bad.

Why is it happening, in this case? Perhaps, as some suggest, because the English have lost a sense that they have anything worth defending. Perhaps because of the unprincipled misconduct of postmodern social engineers, as others have said.

But one reason for sure: European collectivism. Being in the European "union" has opened the floodgates to uncontrollable migration, and overwhelmed the existing social structures. So I wouldn't look to further European collectivism to cause the problem that European collectivism has created in the first place.

Or, should one go and 'clean one's room'?

Absolutely. I would not trust any person who has proved incapable of sorting out his own life to run the lives of the nation. That would obviously be crazy. So it has to be someone with a "sorted room."

Again, I'm not saying the broader social questions don't need to be dealt with; instead, I'm saying you cannot deal with them if you put dealing with them in the hands of the kinds of people who cannot even manage to "clean their own rooms." So first, let them prove themselves faithful in small things, and maybe we can trust them with the larger ones.

Whether my 'room is clean' or is half-clean is irrelevant.

No, it certainly isn't. A person who can't get their "own room" more than half clean can't help the nation by anything near that much. And you seem to recognize the relationship between "cleaning one's own room" and "being a decent person," when later you write:

...to 'cleaning one's room'. And that is just about all the people I associate with are doing.

Or is that not what you meant, namely that "the people you associate with" are good people? I was assuming that's what you did intend.

In fact, I think that's all there is. I don't think the words "Catholic" or "Protestant," "Quaker" or "Methodist," or whatever have any standing in the Divine Mind. And thus, they have none for me. My goal is to follow Christ, not any clergy or tradition. And anyone who does likewise is fully entitled to call herself a "Christian."

I disagree substantially with you.

I know. But I defer in this matter only to the Originator.

If you suppose that 'the Divine Mind' cannot see in terms of categories, on what basis could you begin to defend the categorizing mind?

I'm not sure I see the problem. There are two categories: Christian, and not. That "not" category can be broken down further, too.

There are huge differences between all the sorts of Christians that you just mentioned. You make an attempt to destroy the possibility of categorizing them and their differences. I am sure you have your reasons.

No, I don't fail to recognize doctrinal differences and history. However, these are secondary issues only. The primary one is of personal, basic allegiance to Christ. The rest is not irrelevant, but much, much less pressing. It has no impact on eternal destiny, for one thing.

I flatly disagree with you when you assert -- a truth claim, nothing more -- that 'following Christ' could ever be that simple.

And yet it is.

Your view (IMO) may ultimately flatten difference.

I don't. But some "differences" make a bigger difference than others. The thing is to get the priority right.

"Europe" is a collectivist abstraction. It has no ears, no beliefs, no brain and no ethics. You cannot address it, and it will not respond. If there's anything to it, it's merely a deaf, amoral juggernaut. You can't look to it for salvation. "Europe" doesn't care. It's not even capable of "caring."

You have made it into such,

Not really. "Europe" is a collective. It's made up of Italy, France, Belgium...and that's according to anyone who uses that term, regardless of whether or not they think "European nationalism" is a thing.

Then, if history is any indicator, you'll only produce a new kind of misery.

A false, and even an underhanded assertion. [/quote]
I'm not trying to say anything insulting there. I'm just saying what will happen. I'm not saying you'll want or intend for it to happen, but it will. Collectivism plus ideology produces misery. You cannot find many historical principles that are so clear as that. It's a lesson 148 million people experienced first hand in just the last century.

But you can't ask them now: they're dead.

What about something quite simple: the preservation of the valuation of Occidental classical-liberal educational categories such as our own Classics? The so-called Great Books? 'Our traditions'. The material upon which 'our cultures' have been built? All the people I know are reading deeply. We remain outside of 'misery' but perhaps I cannot distinguish how miserable we really are? [snark]

No, I'm a big believer in The Great Tradition, and have an education in its books. I strongly believe the wisdom of the ages is worth preserving, and have no truck with postmodern nonsense about all the "important" books being new ones. Quite the opposite: I would argue that time is a filter that tends to sift out the less-worthy works, and to retain those that are of enduring significance. That's very worthwhile stuff.

But can we preserve it through some new "European" nationalism? I suggest not. I think that instead, good people have to evaluate what they personally believe, what they are personally committed to, and then stand for it.

If they will not, then God help us all; because collectivizing certainly won't.

[Alizia]

European Nationalism is not my term as if it refers to a federation. The people I am reading, and those I talk with, speak of the need of European identity and common interests. This is not establishing a European Federation or anything similar. From what I see it most often opposes such federalism. But it is nationalistic.

Sure it is. Just as the Danes did it. And the Romans did it. And the French did it. Each time, a new "England" was created, but a lot of people died. And that's not good, as I'm sure you'll agree. Invasions are bad.

But whether I agree or not has no bearing at all on what has happened. Guillaume Faye, who died recently, seemed to be convinced that the nations of Europe were going to enter a crisis. He thought that only when Europe was in that crisis that the most important decisions would be made. I refer you to him. I am not asserting this. I do not know. But history is long and it often ends up deciding things on its own.

I have to answer this by saying I am uncertain what is 'good' and what is 'bad' as it pertains to the meta-political and the Kosmic. I have asked myself if 'ridding Britain of its invading population' will come about through an eventual civil war. People seem to think so. I wonder what will happen. I do not know.

I will agree with you that avoiding mass slaughter is a good idea. But in the larger scale of things, I am not sure what 'God' wants or doesn't want.

[Immanuel Can]

European Nationalism is not my term as if it refers to a federation... But in the larger scale of things, I am not sure what 'God' wants or doesn't want.

Maybe what the prophet Daniel said to the King of Babylon in Daniel Chapter 2.

“You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay......

You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth...

Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. As the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle. And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery..."

In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy."

[Alizia]

Wonderful! So everything will turn out just fine for us.

[Dubious]

Whether one agrees with some, none or all of it, the following does offer an intelligent analysis to the European problem including its inclusion of Jews. It's at least something one can proceed from. Not some useless quote from the bible whose time has no relation to ours.

https://arktos.com/2019/02/01/fatherlan ... n-problem/

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/europe-a-nietz ... rspective/

[Belinda]

Dubious quoted:

Snell, who had managed to remain in Germany during the period of National Socialism and still keep his hands and his soul clean, was concerned that Christianity had not provided an adequate resistance to the forces inherent in Nazism and sought to elaborate an alternative vision in the legacy (or legacies) of Ancient Greece.

May we take it that the legacies of Ancient Greece are primacy of reason, sovereignty of good(Plato), and democracy, not necessarily in that order?
In this connection reason , let's agree, is not limited to scientific activity.

[Alizia]

Those are good articles, Dubious. Thanks!

But the barbarism of the Germans is indicated by Nietzsche to be their quality, toward the reclamation of European vitality. It is therefore not wrongheaded to hope that this barbarism precisely might favour a liberation from the present moralistic labyrinth into which we have been plummeted – not by subtly seeking the route of escape, which is often beyond the power of those who would attempt it, but rather by bursting asunder the very walls. But this is of value only as it is supplemented: for the English suffer definite shortcomings which are particularly un-European. Nietzsche indicates two of the greatest: they are unphilosophical, and they are unmusical. They lack ‘power of spirituality, real profundity of spiritual perception’. This pushes them, by Nietzsche’s estimation, into the arms of a crude Christianity.

Anyone who reads what I write can easily see the type of confusion (uncertainty) that I deal with. I am, at the least, conscious of it. To be conscious of a conflict means that one could, in the best of circumstances, take advantage of it or use it to advantage.

Essentially, I am interested in (and began this thread to discuss and get more clear about) 'European vitality'. I gather that European Protestantism (a German eventuality so it seems) does represent a 'vital spirit' if compared to Catholicism. But Catholicism (as I see it) is more profoundly linked to the wider scope of the traditions of Europe. Therefore, in my view, Catholicism has the capacity to 'see Europe' in a more realistic light. Even Aldous Huxely praised the Church (as he used the term) as being mature in seeing and recognizing the different sorts and types and levels of men that exist (in Europe).

I have come to see, as a result of engaging here in this thread, that my practice of Christianity is an internal affair. Even in our family, in fact, the rites and ethical practices that we value in Catholicism are internal to our family. But, the 'outer world' is a very different world, and the world that now surrounds us is a strange and dangerous one.

So, though I can say that the basic issues (as I understand them) such as immigration; Europe's loss of nerve; its being overcome by nihilism; its surrender of its core 'masculinity' to something opposite of that (not necessarily femininity or the female); and a general weakness and indecisiveness in the face of what confronts 'us': this described our 'moralistic labyrinth': the pit of confusion into which we have fallen, the place we find ourselves.

I suggest that many people feel the need -- the desire -- to burst asunder the very walls. This is impulsive of course. Those who feel it are (it seems to me) often very young, very inexperienced. Yet this is where 'vitality' is to be found.

In contradistinction to that (whatever that is), are the tentacles of a 'crude Christianity'. Or perhaps 'the soft feather-bed' of an effete Christianity. I cannot say, Immanuel Can, really where you stand and less what you really stand for. Being a Christian is not enough, in my view, one has to be a Christian in a given place and to christianize from a locus. Abstract Christianity does not and cannot fly.

My view is becoming that for Europe to rediscover itself it has to recover itself. In certain senses it has to recover from Christianity! That means rediscovery of what is vital and also manly (and I do not exclude the womanly role as 'becoming feminine' and womanly in relation to her man). In fact, I see this recovery as 'recovery of the pagan power' which is 'in the body' and in the soil. But, at the same time, it needs (we need) to become 'more genuinely spiritual' and transcendent value is in no sense excluded from that. Christianity is, of course, all bound up in transcendent definitions and it has waged a war against 'the pagan soul' but also the pagan's relationship to hearth and home (blood & soil if you wish). Christianity must, as I see things, recognize a partnership here. This is 'marriage'.

There is a good deal more in that first article that could be talked about. What I want to say is that it is in that direction that the thinkers of the NER (New European Right) seem to be going. It is not (not always in any case) anti-Christian. And the Christians among them are not anti-Pagan (for want of a good term to use here). I think they recognize the need for a partnership to confront the main enemies.

I may paint this on the ceiling over my bed:

For surely, these are not simple days, nor easy times. No meagre challenges face us. In our day, European democracy – better say, with greater precision, Enlightenment ‘liberalism’ – is drawing its ultimate conclusions. There are many ways of characterizing this fateful occurrence, but in the context of the European problem we might phrase it thus: the ‘Enlightenment’ has made Western man smallest and most fragmented at precisely that historical moment he has most need of being mightiest and most unified. He has been strapped to a secret wheel of Ixion, subjected to the influence of elements foreign to his soul, which moreover have no love for him and which would gladly dilute him out of existence. He is cowed by shame, belittled by unworthy appetites, demeaned by the ready ease of feeding them. He is surrounded each day the more by newcomers arrived from distant lands, who are physiologically haler (because simpler, crasser) and ideologically cleaner and more resolved than he. He has been uprooted at every turn, distanced from all those fertile values of fixed community by which he might have been nourished to strength. His high culture has been sterilized, his soul vulgarized, his heart slaked and his spirit slackened. The conditions are ripe for his utter and final extermination from this globe which he once ruled in the perfect naïveté of his right, and which he has in countless respects rendered more beautiful and nobler. But in these very conditions are precisely the conditions also for his renewal: namely, the danger and the pain to awaken his slumbering mind, the trial to test and harden these atrophied muscles, the enemies to unite him to his kith and kin in common cause – the very calamity in which his spirit may learn again to soar, lest it drown. A new birth is possible today, a birth by fire – if no longer for Irishman and Italians, Austrians and Gauls, then for something higher, something stronger yet.

[-1-]

You guys are really bent.

You never stepped outside of America, and talk about foreign lands as if they had been under your command and they are only waiting for you to issue decrees which way to march.

And your assumptions: "German barbarism", "moral confusion" etc. etc, they make me laugh out loud inwardly just reading them.

Name one thing, please, just ONE moral failure that all of Europe has to the American advantage.

Your discourse is a very seriously laughable matter.

Keep on going. You two will save the world by talking to each other until you are blue in the face.

Hours of fun reading. "How can people be so obtuse?" Asks the reader, rhetorically, from himself, with a gentle smile and with the satisfaction of knowledge not to be quite as obtuse as your dialogue.