Believe it or not, some people do expect an explanation of the fact that I won't allow myself to be trolled in forums that I moderate. Why not? A few questions and their answers:

Question: Aren't you some kind of free speech advocate? How were people supposed to know that they couldn't violate the laws against libel in your forums? Wait, that didn't come out right. OK, how were they could they have guessed that you'd object to your hospitality being abused? Wait, no let me rephrase that ...

Answer: While you work on a way to make personal abuse and manipulation sound civilized, I'll start my answer by asking how somebody could possibly be surprised. The Universal Base Code of Morality was one of the first pages to go up on the Almond Jar, and it is hardly vague.

Note that one of the non-negotiable values that I insisted on, in the Uniform Base Code of Morality was that of honor. Take this as one of many illustrations of why it is that this would be. Without honor, in a very real sense, one can not even have a conversation and so one does not deny the value of freedom by silencing those who deal so dishonestly. One takes from them nothing of positive moral value that they had not already freely chosen to cast away - if there is no real conversation for them to be a part of, then how could they have been part of it even had they been allowed to stay? In this observation, we find the reality that there is little harshness in one's insistence on enforcing the terms of the social contract, because the goods forfeited by the side not in compliance with it had already been spoiled, the losses continuing so long as the offending party had been indulged in its desire to have its nonperformance overlooked

Question: OK, I understand you speaking up if one of you're guests is abused, but isn't it different if you're the aggrieved / annoyed / bewildered party?

Answer: No, and why would it be?

Only in Pop Christianity, some of the more defeatest strains of Eastern Religion and in the shamelessly manipulative New Age, does one find the notion that acting in one's own self-defense is anything but a righteous act. One is reminded of the old Jewish saying "If I am not for me, then who is". When the notion that one should act in one's own self-defense is discarded, so is the possibility of civility, because the very others who one would hope to come to one's defense in lieu of one's own efforts at self defense will be left with the uncomfortable question "what if I am the one who gets turned on". The only value that is reinforced by those yielding to such an unreasonable demand is that of cowardice. The only social order that one is helping to build, where such a creed of weakness takes hold, is one that will be dominated, not by those who honor the principles that are supposed to guide it, but by those who don't. It is, to borrow a phrase used by Nietzsche during one of his more lucid moments, "slave morality", and no basis for building a viable culture, subculture or society.

Question: I'm not sure that I agree. This is, after all, a religion site, and if you wish to be taken seriously, you ought to act more religiously. If you were truly wise, would such insignificant things as human pettiness or vice trouble you? Consider the serenity of a Hindu or Buddhist holy man from one of the ancient societies of the east - is this not a model for us in the West to aspire to emulate, as many have begun to? Now chant with me, my olive eating friend, "ommmmmm ...."

Answer: Have you taken a good look at those ancient Eastern societies, lately? How well do they really seem to be functioning in real life?

If one wishes to reduce religion to being some sort of fantasy role playing game, as some of our 18-year old would-be community leaders seem to want us to do, then yes, one can put the images of squalor, starvation and misery out of one's mind, as one ponders where such passive wisdom has lead in the past, and probably have quite the romantic experience, listening to the soft notes of the sitar in a darkened room as one tries not to choke on the patchouli. But, some of us have grown up and realized that the purpose of religion is not to give one a really cool experience that one can wow one's friends with, but to give one guidance as one deals with the not very cool world that exists on the other side of that beaded curtain, where one is likelier to hear a car backfiring than one is to hear the crackling of the record that one's self-styled guru picked up at Haight and Ashbury. This is why I would never allow the donning of the tunic at any event that I would preside over - I have no desire to help anybody escape reality, because look at what happens to reality when that effort succeeds.

Question:Aren't we overdramatizing? One hardly sees children with their stomachs bloating up on the streets of Evanston.

Answer: Perhaps not, though one does see children with their legs bowing outward from rickets, and showing the signs of slow, progressive and irreversible damage from malnutrition in the streets of the South Side of Chicago - children whose fathers can be seen drinking away money that could be used to feed their children better. One sees the broken spirits of those who have been without employment for years, sometimes even for decades, not because there is no work that they could perform and perform well, but sometimes because of the unreasoning greed of the businessman who will not open factories where he must pay more than pennies per hour in wages for his employees, and sometimes because of the gloating pride of the personnel manager who revels in the opportunity to be capricious. One sees the victims of those who've acted violently on impulse, and at the very least hears the stories of those who've been abused and sometimes even tortured by the police, those who should be upholding the very laws they violate, and often find that they need have little fear of the consequences. If we think that Chicago is the home of a well-functioning society today, shortly after the turn of the Millenium, we are deluding ourselves. One might say the same of many other cities as well.

Such are the rewards for some of a value system that teaches that "anything goes", and that self-indulgence is the highest good - a value system that the New Age encourages us to embrace. There may be some pleasant noises made about "an ye harm none", but a value that one can't call another to task for, for his failure to honor, is no value at all. In preaching an ethic of "thou shalt not judge no matter what, unless the one that one judges is unpopular and a lot of other people are judging him, too", this is what our friends in the New Age do to all values but the undesirable one of cowardice, as the incidents mentioned on this page help to illustrate. This is why, as Traditionalists, we seek no sense of common community with them. An honorable man will think about the consequences of the values he is spreading among all of those it will touch, and not just those who he will have to see.

Question: Sigh. Yes, Antistoicus, there are some unpleasant corners of American society, but are you not being very selective in what you choose to see? Again, you overdramatize, pointing to that which is glaringly bad, while glossing over that which is good ...

Answer: As most conservatives do? No, I most certainly do not "gloss over that which is good". It is that which I have focused my most careful attention on. But some, enjoying the blessings of an easy life, never seem to ask themselves why it is that such an easy life can be found in so many places in this country. Why that is, or at least usually is, is because we live in a society that for the most part is functioning. The problem is that, like the man who thinks that meat is something that just materializes in his supermarket already in the shrink wrap and during dinner grows indignant about those horrible people who hurt animals, venting his bile between bites of prime rib, our smug and self-satisfied commentator has been fully seperated from the process that brought about the good that he takes for granted. This allows him to maintain the illusion that the presence of that good is something that "just happens", not something that is maintained because others are willing to do their civic duty and do their part to maintain it.

If one, or two, or even a thousand people fail to grow up and do their part, we won't see the North Side turn into a cold weather version of Calcutta, because we have so far to fall before we get to that point. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that we're not taking a step in that direction every time somebody blows a goodbye kiss to reality, and starts responding to sensible concerns with trendy pop philosophical comments about "letting go" ... of one's fear, anger, or whatever else is getting in the way of his willingess to "go with the flow" and conform mindlessly with the collective will of those around him. That kind of cheerful apathy isn't what built the West, it's what built the Third World. When one looks at how poorly most of members of the New Age community seem to be doing in their own personal and professional lives, if one is at all awake, one soon notices that the Third World is never as comfortably as far away from our own doors as we'd like to think that it is.

And why would it be? Picture the standard of rationality you see in some of these incidents being applied in the workplace. Don't laugh, because it has happened during the last few decades, sometimes with results that have made in into the history books. Remember that great moment when the Challenger was about to lift off, some of the engineers warned that flying in such inclement weather would be unsafe, and were given that directive that shall long be remembered:




"Take off your engineering hats and put on your managerial hats"



As if reality could be browbeaten into surrender. The results, as we all know, were tragic, but the lesson was lost on many: one can't take the sanity or common sense of one's fellow man for granted, even if that fellow man should be in a position of responsibility. What can one say, other than "thank God for market discipline"? People who think as the New Age teaches them to, "don't worry, be happy and go along with what everybody else is saying", are encouraging bad habits in themselves that will stand themselves in poor stead in their personal and professional lives. One can not spend one's off hours acting in support of people who act like absolute lunatics, in any sense, and suddenly become a hardheaded professional just because 9 am on a monday morning rolls around. That's not human nature - reinforced habits linger. In a responsibly run company, these people are soon history, and the irresponsibly run ones are destined for bankruptcy, just as soon as the few people who are pushing themselves into early coronaries by cleaning up the messes the crazies leave behind come to their senses and head over to responsibly run firms.

The West achieved its successes, not because of kismet, not because of some design of the gods, and not because "it just happened, so we should let go of our fears", but because of a common basic system of core values that allowed people to work together productively, instead of always working at cross purposes. It maintains its successes only because those successes are renewed each day, and whether some people are mature enough to handle the truth or not, one either does live by those core values or one does not. If one does not, then one has defined oneself out of that network of personal connections that gives life and structure to a very viable civilization, and should not expect to fully share in the blessings of that which he has not done his part to maintain. For him to complain of the injustice of this is much like somebody protesting "just because I didn't go to the party, does that mean that I shouldn't have been able to drink any of the beer?" Having made one's choices with a reasonable opportunity of making them informed ones, one has chosen the consequences of those choices and has nobody to complain to but oneself if one finds them to be bad ones.

Question: You sound most vehement on this point. Do you not understand that this kind of drama will diminish you and your faith in the eyes of others?

Answer: Perhaps so, but in the eyes of which other people, and are they people to whom I should wish to appeal? On examination, they've usually turned out to be those who, given every fair opportunity to get ahead in society, ended up becoming clerks in record stores or stockboys in third rate mail order firms, living from paycheck to paycheck while forking over money they can not afford to charlatans living in far off cities, just so that they can belong to a group of people who would have them. They are professional failures who, given half a chance, will drag the rest of us down to their own level, and that's a major part of what the New Age is about. It's a reflection of the attitudes of those who, in one way or another, have stopped bothering, and rather than engaging in a little self-examination and asked themselves why that is, have reacted angrily to the very idea that self-examination is a thing that one ought to be called to do, and become evangelistic about their own lack of motivation, seeking to spread it far and wide.

Some of us, however, have not forgotten how to hope for more out of life than such a slacker's future would offer us. Those of us who either are professionals or are aspiring to become such in a serious, sensible way hope to get a little bit more out of life than that. We have enough sense to put a high value on our time, and to, without undue apology, show those who are wasting it to the door. Our message to the genuinely disruptive few is "abide by the rules that allow us all to live productive and rewarding lives, or be gone".

Question: Including the call for the "primacy of reason"? So ... what? You Christo-Hellenic people have a rational three hour debate every time you go to the grocery store? The group silences the individual for a reason - because it couldn't get anything done if it had to debate every minority view at every moment ...

Answer: A fact that New Ager and Politically Correct people seem to count on, as they constantly demand that others defend choices which are none of their business, acting victimized when those other people finally decide that they've had enough, and ask the fluffies to leave. But no, despite the expectations of more than a few dyspeptically self-righteous college freshmen, we are not open to on-the-spot debates about every action we take. There is a time and a place for everything, and the time and place for a philosophical discussion comes at a time when we can pause for a discussion of the hypothetical, and are in a place where we may do so comfortably.

As we have seen, there is some real philosophy behind our positions, and on a theoretical level, we may be glad to expound upon it. But on a practical level, we act in the moment, tabling discussion of how theory should be revised, until it has found current application, for better or worse. We do not debate property rights with the would-be mugger who desires our wallets, nor do we debate the ethics of free expression with somebody trying to pressure us into silence. Acting in the moment, we focus on the one who has become the source of trouble, and see to it that he departs immediately.

Question: Does this not make you a hypocrite? You speak of reason and yet resort to force, making you as much a dictator as the Wiccan clergy you criticize, no more committed to reason than they are?

Answer: When members of the Shrine attempt to disrupt the functioning of organizations not run according to our theological terms, with my encouragement, come back and ask that question again. There is quite a difference between assertively making a choice for oneself and attempting to force it on others. So far, the only choice that we've advocated forcing on others is that of respecting each other's rights and not acting in such a way as to lead to the denial of those rights. While some have seriously tried to compare one's desire for a lawful, civil society with a fundamentalist's intolerance, the reality is that the freedom to make one's own choices is the first thing to be lost when society (or the subculture one finds oneself in) is neither lawful nor civil. This is why we showed the local Wiccan community the door - had we not, the very lawless and uncivil subculture it was a part of, would have continued lapping at our doorfront.

As for reason, you see it used in discussions throughout this site, and even if we do not have such discussions at every moment, the memory of them stays with us, providing us with a sense of direction that helps to guide us through the moments that follow, even if it does not do so infallibly. Have you ever learned a skill that one makes use of, quickly? Driving a car, skiing, ... whatever? Did those lessons not prove to be of use? Would you not have wrapped yourself around a tree or lamppost, or otherwise done harm to yourself or others without that training? Yet, valuing that training as you do, would you find it helpful for an instructor to start shouting out suggestions on how to improve your technique as you were in the middle of a ski jump, or serving to avoid a collision - even granting the fact that your technique could be improved? The use of reason is such as this, the process itself becoming as an instructor for our instincts, but acting in the sudden moment, that part of our instincts, thus informed, must act, for better or for worse.

Some few among our own ranks in Academia, at the beginning of their careers and still too immersed in the classroom, will protest this. We are using force and not reason by ejecting difficult people instead of debating with them, these callow detractors will say, confusing their naivite with philosophical rigor as they so often do. The people some of us quickly send away will often try to echo this criticism, saying something along the lines of "see, you're no different from the others you complain about". But both are in error, be it sincere or disingenuously affected: reason guided the development of the very value system that our indignation, and occasionally our disgust, roots itself in, and our reasons are placed out in the open for all to see, before the fact far more often than not. When it is not, that is because we have seen an error in our earlier conception of those principles, a recognition that informs our subsequent judgements. The proper time for discussion for the most part comes when principle is established, not when it is being acted upon.

We recognize that the discussion of principle and the discussion of action are two seperate discussions, as they must be. Otherwise, principle can all too easily be revised on a continuing basis to meet the demands of political convenience, and we've all seen where that can lead, in the absurd moments Pagandom has offered in abundance, and elsewhere as well. Such an approach, far from being an embrace of reason, is a reinforcement of its rejection, in practice, and it is not feasible, because debates take time. In real life, we must act quickly to be effective, often dealing with those on whom reason is wasted, and so, acting in the moment, we act upon what some would call "Halmos' dictum".

A professor of our acquaintence, named Paul Halmos, had written a book about one of foundational branches of Mathematics (Set Theory), including a simple piece of advice that bewildered so many first year students in his introduction. Regarding the theory, he said, "read it, absorb it and forget it". The more we think about that advice, which rings so strangely on very young ears, the more sense it makes. Make what you have learned second nature, acted on as a matter of instinct instead of self-consciously, and you will be able to act on it with the ease you need in order to get work done reasonably quickly. I would advise that much the same approach be taken in the application of Philosophy or any other subject in which understanding comes in layers, one body of theory building upon another.

This has been my position, much to the unpleasant surprise of those who, on reading lengthy discussions of Ethical theory, think that I will feel obligated to dither in the face of aggression. Never so, if for no other reason, then because a value system that can not be lived by in practice is no value system at all, and that is exactly the problem with Neo-Pagan (as opposed to Traditionalist) ethics, on a theoretical level.





Let's continue ...