Two Counter-Currents articles

After all the terrible atrocities humans have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate against animals I think we should abolish all human history and exterminate all humans to make the world a better place for the rest of the living. Lets end speciesism and human supremacy. – Joseph Walsh

I concluded my entry yesterday by saying that because of pride whites don’t want to see the cause of their misfortune: the axiological reversal that Christianity caused in their collective mind. A paradigm of such pride is exemplified by libertarian Americans.

Three months ago I realised that the ideology advocated by the former youtuber John Mark was cuckoldry. I wrote: ‘Mark says that, unlike the alt-right, propertiarianism represents the “scientific” approach and that those who practice it “love all people” [including non-whites]’. One of CC’s articles, the one about Mark and his pathetic libertarian mentor, is as funny as what a couple of years ago happened to the two Matts, who wanted to create an impossible chimera between Orthodox Christianity and racism. The grotesque event of this July 4 in which John Mark and his mentor imploded has been well illustrated with the Dodo metaphor in the CC article. The comments section is fascinating.

In my post yesterday, I also said that I consider the issue of child abuse my forte, although in recent years I have realised that this issue is inseparable from the animal abuse that humans perpetrate. Now I think both are two sides of the same coin. The other CC article addresses the issue of animal rights, but in a very flawed way.

I don’t want to expand too much because my yesterday post is important, and instead of adding a lot of posts on top of it I would like to give it time, to see if I get more replies (about the pederasty in Homer’s poetry nobody has said a peep).

Simply put, abuse of children or animals cannot be addressed by the intellect alone, as that second CC article does. It is necessary to involve emotions. In my soliloquies I call ‘hemiplegic’ those who believe that only by using the left hemisphere of the brain can understand a man-made tragedy.

As Aristotle saw well, the purpose of the Greek tragedy was to produce a catharsis in the spectator: as my friend Teresa cried in the car, all the way back, when many years ago we went to see Iphigenia. I didn’t cry, but the tragedy of the teenage Iphigenia, whom her father sacrifices to the gods, shocked me to the point of including that Greek film among one of my ten favourites.

The CC article is analogous to the Iphigenia theme… without any emotion (see Walsh’s quote above)! In my books in Spanish I address the same topic—sacrificing your child or an animal—with the equivalent of Teresa’s sea of tears that night. In addition to my cold argumentation after such catharsis, the alternation of both hemispheres results in a balanced understanding: Apollo dancing with Dionysus so to speak, compared to the hemiplegic approach we see in this second CC article and the following comments.