YouTube 

I’m thinking about making YouTube video’s on various topics. I generally just like to respond to nonsense. 

What do you guys think? Should I? And which topics? 

Leave your comments down below if you have any ideas 🙂 

Style 

This post is part of a series which I call an ‘autobiographical book of ideas’. In more colloquial terms it means that I am writing and/or finding texts on all sorts of topics which I will compile at the end of the year to form somewhat of a book that represents my opinions and views at this point in my life. I hope you enjoy the journey 🙂

“Style is the answer to everything.” That’s how I wanted to start my blog today, but this also happens to be the first sentence of a famous poem by Charles Bukowski on style. And Bukowski really answers what style is, in my opinion.

Style – Charles Bukowski
Style is the answer to everything. A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing. 
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without it.

To do a dangerous thing with style is what I call art.

Bullfighting can be an art.

Boxing can be an art.

Loving can be an art.

Opening a can of sardines can be an art.

Not many have style, not many can keep style.

I have seen dogs with more style than men, although not many dogs have style.

Cats have it with abundance.

When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun,
that was style.

Or sometimes people give you style.

Joan of Arc had style

John the Baptist

Christ 

Socrates

Caesar

García Lorca.

I have met men in jail with style.

I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.

Style is the difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.

Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water,

or you, naked, walking out of the bathroom without seeing me.

Sleep

There will be plenty of time for that in the grave.

This post is part of a series which I call an ‘autobiographical book of ideas’. In more colloquial terms it means that I am writing and/or finding texts on all sorts of topics which I will compile at the end of the year to form somewhat of a book that represents my opinions and views at this point in my life. I hope you enjoy the journey 🙂

I detest the idea of being ‘tolerated’

I am not alive to be tolerated by anyone. Let those whom find my existence to be intolerable be filled with shame for their bigotry. And let those whom find my views intolerable stand up and bring forth their case against me. 

I would rather be hated but seen as an equal, than to be tolerated and seen as an inferior. 

I do not engage in cultural relativism. Leave it to those with a great feeling of self-hate to dilute their own intellectual honesty about what is good and what is wrong.  

But if we are to discuss tolerance. In an academic manner, and not the everyday meaning I just talked about, then what is it? What does it entail, and by what is it limited? 

The final words on this issue are written by Karl Popper in his famous argument on the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
This post is part of a series which I call an ‘autobiographical book of ideas’. In more colloquial terms it means that I am writing and/or finding texts on all sorts of topics which I will compile at the end of the year to form somewhat of a book that represents my opinions and views at this point in my life. I hope you enjoy the journey 🙂

France why do you hate yourself?

Il n’y a pas de culture Française. “There is no such thing as French culture”, president of France, Emmanuel Macron.

I’m sure it took you a while to comprehend the schizophrenic nature of this utterance by a president of the Republic. Once a proud nation.

Mr. Macron made this comment to the left-wing newspaper Liberation, whose title in this context surely invokes a sense of irony.

The president strives for an ‘inclusive’ culture and therefore does not want to exclude anyone. Or as he phrases it himself: “There is culture in France and it is diverse and multiple. And I will not exclude from this culture, certain authors or musicians or artists, on the pretext that they supposedly come from elsewhere.”

I leave to you whom and what Mr. Macron meant by ‘they whom supposedly come from elsewhere’.

And it does sound nice, to be inclusive, doesn’t it? Nobody wants to be ‘exclusive’, or God forbid, xenophobic.

But how ‘inclusive’ is Mr. Macron willing to be? Is he willing to make the values of the Republic negotiable? Is he willing to engage in cultural relativism, arguing that other values are to be appreciated equally? Or does he secretly know which values are superior? And if he does, then why does he not defend the values of the Republic against any values that are in clear contradiction?

Unfortunately not just politicians from France have decided to give up on themselves, and their history. Politicians from all over the continent have thrown in the towel and walked off to the bar. They won’t live to see the consequences of their pacifism. And are rich enough to avoid seeing the harm they do.

The failure of European leaders to defend all that this great continent has produced, fostered and nurtured along the veil of years is described impeccably by Douglas Murray in his newest book The Strange Death of Europe.

I care about France. The wonderful contributions its people have bought to humanity are unique. Think of Sartre, Foucault, Descartes, Voltaire.

And because I care I hope to leave you with a thought. By who else, but Churchill as said in September of 1936. Still applicable today:

“For good and ill the French people have been effectively masters in their own house, and have built as they chose upon the ruins of the old régime. They have done what they like. Their difficulty is to like what they have done.”

Think!


“The sleep of reason creates monsters.”

Is the title of this painting by Francisco Goya made around 1799. 

It’s thought provoking. What happens when we give up our critical faculties?

The official motivation for the painting is as follows:

“Goya imagines himself asleep amidst his drawing tools, his reason dulled by slumber and bedeviled by creatures that prowl in the dark. The work includes owls that may be symbols of folly and bats symbolizing ignorance. The artist’s nightmare reflected his view of Spanish society, which he portrayed in the Caprichos as demented, corrupt, and ripe for ridicule.”