Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Our Label is a Better Life
by Alex Birch
I was talking to Martin today and he told me how this past year we've been working together has been a real blast. Unlike many other "anti-modern" sites out there that try to explain to unhappy people why their depression is morally justified ("life is not fair, don't you hate yourself?"), we bring a much more positive message: we're basically happy people who are here to tell you how to make your life even better.
Our positive psychology sets us apart from the rest, because if you think like we do, you can achieve so much more good in life. Think about the whiners who always complain about how violent society is, how corrupt our leaders are, how NWO is controlling us, and how unfair life is. What do they really get done? Not much. Then think about the people who are aware of the problems around them, but believe they at least can change their daily environment. Who do you want to be? What do you want to be--bitter and angry or positive and successful?
People who argue over whether we are "Traditionalists," "NeoCons" or "Aryans" are missing the point. They're trying to play with labels, because that's how moral justification works: "I am not doing anything constructive, but at least I am X, or part of X." We're not always easy to put on a map, so people like to do it for us. If they just read our ideas and thought about it, they wouldn't need any labels. We represent ourselves, unapologetically.
When you grow up from this infantile label-game, you realize your attitude and approach to daily problems matter more than what world-spanning interest group you claim to represent. People who do good things are too busy working to consider "what" they are. But we've come so far as to say we believe in a few basic ideas. Less government and bureaucracy. More traditional culture and individual responsibility. Happy families and good beer. An active lifestyle and homemade food. Maybe a war or depression now and then to keep us busy and focused on reality.
Brett Stevens once wrote:
There is no reason to step back from the world, say "well I coulda done that if The Man let me," and then sulk in failure. Life is joyful war.
I still believe he's right. Go for it.
Trackback:
Linkage is Good for You: Really Freaking Long Edition
from In Mala Fide on Sun, 2009-10-18 17:09Because I’m far too lazy to keep thinking up puns that involve the word “plug,” I’m sticking with one title from here on out.
New bloggers on the roll include Bob Belvedere, who I introduced in this post. He describes himself as...
Some excellent points, but...
...I think this particular point is a bit strawman-ish and perhaps even an unintentional misidentification of the cause:
"They're trying to play with labels, because that's how moral justification works: "I am not doing anything constructive, but at least I am X, or part of X.""
Most people don't "play" with labels to cover up their lack of productivity with "moral justification." (perhaps some, but certainly not all.) People seek out labels in order to guide themselves towards the intellectual and moral ideal embodied by a label (though there are also the many who seek out the superficial image and "coolness" associated with a particular label.)
Some of the readers on this site want to ascribe labels to you based on labels you've held in the past that you've moved on from, and now cry foul when you don't line up neatly with them. I don't think it's a case of moral justification, but perhaps moral inflexibility, ie. the opposite extreme of the Ecclectic New Age Wiccan. (I see nothing wrong with considering Catholicism in the past, and then, deeming it unworthy, moving on from it.)
On this point:
"People who do good things are too busy working to consider "what" they are."
I disagree. From personal experience, a lot of people doing good know precisely who/what they are, and are able to move forward in action precisely because of this. Isn't that, in the end, what philosophy is all about? Figuring out how the universe works, as well as figuring out who you are in terms of your intellectual and moral compass to better determine what course of action to take with your life (or moment)?
One final thing: I think that perhaps I am guilty of the above label slapping as well, in terms of my confusion caused by the conflict between Nietzsche and Traditionalism. However, at the same time, I say again that going too far down the path of "labels don't matter" can be just as flawed as the opposite extreme outlined previously. It is, after all, at least partially responsible for the "label debate" that springs up on this site every other week/month.
I must ask, what is manner in which you have resolved the conflict between Traditionalism's collectivist mindset, versus Nietzsche's seemingly hyper-individualist mindset?
Overall, the essential point that I'm trying to get at is that I think you may need to solidify your identity more (maybe write an article explaining where you have come from in the past, and where you are going), and that some of the readers need to be not quite so clingy to who you were in the past.
Traditionalism vs Nietzscheanism
Since we're not Traditionalists, this is a non-issue. I don't think everyone here is into Nietzsche, either. You're creating a conflict that doesn't exist, when what really is important is what we write about daily on the site. I think that was my point.
Okay, fair enough...
...it seems I too was caught up in applying labels that were not declared, based on perceptions from some of the articles. I think I get your point now, my apologies.
Right on bro.
Right on bro.