A philosophical conundrum

Douglas Adams’s conundrum:

Due to the dust cloud, the sky above Krikkit was completely black, and thus the people of Krikkit led insular lives and never realised the existence of the Universe at large. With the population thus prepared, Hactar, disintegrated but still functional, built and crashed a model spaceship onto Krikkit in order to introduce its inhabitants to the concept of the Universe.

Secretly guided by Hactar, the Krikkiters built their first spaceship, Krikkit One, penetrated the dust cloud, and surveyed the Universe before them. Unbeknownst to the Krikkiters, Hactar had been subliminally conditioning their minds to the point where they could not accept a Universe into their world view, with the intention of putting them into a similar mindset to that of the Silastic Armorfiends.

Sooner or later, they would require an Ultimate Weapon, and this would allow Hactar to finally complete his purpose, something he had felt considerable guilt about not doing before. Upon first witnessing the glory and splendor of the Universe, they casually, whimsically, decided to destroy it, remarking, “It’ll have to go”.

Aided again by the mind of Hactar, the Krikkiters built an incredible battlefleet and waged a massive war against the entire Universe. The Galaxy, then in an era of relative peace, was unprepared, and spent the next 2,000 years fighting the Krikkiters in a war that resulted in about two “grillion” casualties.


There are all sorts of things in Douglas Adams’s world view which I, essentially on the centre-right, can’t go for, not least being the need to assimilate the Universe in the first place. We come to the first philosophical point.

There are two kinds of libertarians – Out-and-Out Libertarians for whom freedom to do as you wish trumps all other considerations … and Classical Liberals who essentially agree with the O&OLs on most points but say that the limits are where others are demonstrably, directly harmed by a ‘freedom’.

This of course is a sticky wicket. The O&OL view is a simple one and they can ruthlessly pursue it to their hearts’ content. The CL view can immediately be attacked:

1. What are the limits?

2. Who decides these limits?

3. Do these limits apply to all or just to one or two groups?

4. How can you demonstrate ‘harm’ when I don’t value the things you do and don’t see harm in the things you say are harmful? Am I not equal to you in the society? Does not my opinion and behaviour equate to yours, therefore you can’t stop me?

5. And are those you consider harmful not so in my view because I have not done my homework on these Harmers and am of a different philosophical bent to you? For example, if you say the breakdown of the family is something aimed for by Hactar but I say bollox, I don’t do conspiracy theories, and when you show me the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism, plus Weishaupt’s seven goals, I just say it’s fantasyland – it never happened, then how far have we got?

But you know there is an agenda, you have the facts and figures at hand, and nothing has subsequently happened to undermine that view, in fact it’s been a textbook case of the arcane and subtle Hactar at work on hearts and minds.

We’re on a sticky wicket here because unless I and all of my viewpoint wake up, then dire things are already happening and will get worse because, en masse, we don’t believe you, we don’t value the things you value, so we welcome all Harmers in our attitude of peace and love.

But you’re also on a sticky wicket because there is no Will among decision makers to stop the Harmers, except in a group of people who keep coming second in elections and every time you call out the Harmers, we call you Haters and Fascists. As for Hactar himself, not a chance of getting at him.

Penultimately, events force my kind to wake up in part but we then feverishly try to explain away why things are going wrong, desperately sticking to our Hactar-given narrative. You call us idiots and we all the more tenaciously cling to our non-reality.

Ultimately, events are so clear that large numbers of us come to sanity and see that something must be done. So limits are put, for example, on all foreigners, not just Harmers and this is worse than when we were narrative driven.

Which is the second philosophical point – the notion that all peoples are the same, both genders are the same, act in the same way, behave the same way though from completely different cultures, that there can be no discriminating between a demonstrable Harmer and another people with no history of Harming others. And that Harmers can be non-Harmers as well, that the non-Harmer Harmer will share the same values as the indigenous, because Hactar’s narrative says it is so and it’s been fed into us from birth.

And following on immediately, the third philosophical point:

The harm is always presented as a good, a summum bonum. From gay ‘marriage’ and feminazism disguising the real agenda of family breakdown under the guise of biologically impossible ‘equality’ to this one, on Weinstein:

* Exactly as Eric Raymond said. If that’s how they choose to do business in Hollywood, who are we to tell them otherwise? All the shrieking hysteria is just feminist narrative, I’m not sure I can see any laws that were broken anywhere?

Belief in free enterprise and libertarianism means that anything at all is OK, no exceptions, no limits. Never mind that this O&OLibertarianism is hijacked by Hactar’s narrative and fed into schools, media, law, never mind that the result is the slow ruination of society because it is by no means an isolated incident – there can be no stopping this harm … for philosophical reasons.

It’s like me seeing someone drowning in a river but I can’t act because the law says no and anyway, I would be infringing on that person’s self-determination.

And so, harm is not stopped. Furthermore, the sage who wrote the quote above can immediately turn to me and ask:

1. What are the limits?

2. Who decides these limits?

3. Do these limits apply to all or just to one or two groups?

4. How can you demonstrate ‘harm’ when I don’t value the things you do and don’t see harm in the things you say are harmful? Am I not equal to you in the society? Does not my opinion and behaviour equate to yours, therefore you can’t stop me?

And I have no answer he would listen to because trying to demonstrate a hydra insinuating its way into every nook and cranny over 120 years, altering people’s very view of reality [especially the young] is non-demonstrableor at least would take a course of lectures or a tome.

It’s not like Muslim atrocities which are easily observed and there does seem a correlation in many people’s minds now.

Onto a fourth philosophical point:

One’s personal concerns determine what views one will buy and which one will not. If I have similar views to you on most things, then perhaps you’ll consider something else I put. If that is not of the remotest interest to you, then no amount of words from me can alter that.

There was an example of what I mean at the Wail in an article which was advice to the lovelorn. No, I’m out of the game but that doesn’t mean it’s not fun to read and see if anyone says anything sensible. Actually, for once there was and one commenter wrote:

I read this article with a jaded eye but soon realised there is some very good advice throughout.

One man wrote:

I hear them talking about trying to meet someone all the time. I have overheard a couple of stories where the men as described sounded like completely normal nice guys, but the women were saying things like ¿he¿s so annoying¿ etc. then, as the pattern goes, I see one young woman crying in the office, surrounded by her support posse. We come to find out another player type broke her heart after she banged him on the first or second date.

A woman wrote:

Step 1- tell the guy you won’t have sex until marriage. The ones that want to hit it and quit it will run so fast your head will spin. The ones that want to get to know YOU and just spend time with you will stay. I quickly weeded out the dogs that way. I dated a guy that when I told him I wouldn’t be having sex with him while we dated, said “I don’t care if we ever have sex! I just want to be with you!”–he was a keeper. Married him and celebrating our 20th wedding anniversary next month.

* May we come back to the sage above:

If that’s how they choose to do business in Hollywood, who are we to tell them otherwise?

If you ignore Hactar’s agenda, then that is largely true – people make choices and live by them. It wasn’t ISIS pressing defenceless girls into sex slavery, it was sex slavery only if they or their mothers wanted them to rise in Hollywood. Different thing. Yet I contend Hactar still can’t be set aside altogether and this is where we differ.

Plus a child on her own is in no position to make those sorts of decisions. That’s why there’s an age of consent, an age of responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. You’d expect a former educator to say something like that, you’d also expect someone subscribing to Christian morality, though failing miserably at it, to say something like that.

Therefore I want fathers in homes to put limits on what daughters can do below 18, as it always used to be, doesn’t mean any of you are going to agree with me and I’m fine with that.

But I do say – if this is not turned around, then we have a situation like one of the other commenters, a woman, who said she was delighted to be single in her 40s. Our O&OL looks at that and says: “And what? Sounds reasonable.”

What that means though is she can still screw around, commitment’s something for the birds, everyone’s supposed to be happy and her children don’t mind. Wouldn’t matter if they did anyway. The concept of the rise of a nation of slappers would register with few today, people are inured, innoculated against the way society once operated, against the way fathers used to act.

Let’s move, obliquely, to an article sent by Distant Relative:

https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2017/10/16/hyper-realistic-stress-inoculation/#more-1015

As I was writing up the title, it struck me that one of the goals of psyops like Vegas and Boston is exactly to inoculate us. I’ve noticed on other sites like pieceofmindful and reddit, people are remarking on how everyone seems to have moved on from Vegas only a week later. It is both true and remarkable. People have become inoculated to this kind of violence. No, I should not have stated that in the passive voice: people are being deliberately inoculated to it. To what end, I wonder?

The word I would have used is “inured” and Yuri Bezmenov had much to say on that. It’s conditioning people to accept redefinitions of reality over a period of time. Not just in atrocities, real or fake, but in all the rest of it above in this post.

And none of it is in the best interests of “we the people”. And to this end, Out-and-Out Libertarianism is being turned on itself so that it can never effectively stop wrong.

But as already said above, the moment you don’t accept 100% licence in people’s actions, then it’s a very slippery slope all the way down to state control of everyone’s life, something we’ve been fighting for years.

It’s a philosophical conundrum.

2 comments for “A philosophical conundrum

  1. October 18, 2017 at 01:45

    Limits. We accept gravity. Within gravity and having air we can fly and soar: things which would not be possible without the constraints of gravity. We have freedom. Ignore or deny gravity and we have licence to jump off a cliff and the results are quite predictable whether we know of gravity or not. A child jumps off a roof with a superman cape and discovers the difference between freedom and licence.

    Gravity is but one non-man-made phenomenon: there are many other quite real but discoverable forces acting upon our experience of freedom and ability to live and thrive.

    Morality is another set of phenomena which act upon our freedom and on our licence. Failure to acknowledge, recognise, comprehend leads to equally body-destroying outcomes. Morality is not man-made either. It is a limitation too. We have licence to ignore the force of morality and like children we jump off the roof.

    The child resents the adult telling him of the dangers. The child has little conception of maturity. Today the child outnumbers the mature. They know not what they do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *