As an extreme conservative archliberal (no irony, by the way), I think looking to tradition for information on all areas of life is extremely important. Ori Hofmekler has done some real research into how ancient warriors really ate and lived, unlike a lot of products who use the image of the ancient warrior as a theme with no real connection. According to historical sources, not mythology, the endurance of the ancient warrior, from rowing triremes to marching in running with a lot of heavy equipment, to the physical effort involved in having to use a spear for hours at a time was truly incredible and a lot of men managed to get to this level without everybody getting injured and dying from overexertion.
The basic themes of his book The Warrior Diet, and it's excellent companion The Anti-Estrogenic Diet, call on these sources and connects them to modern research. You change not only what you eat, but when you eat, and I know from personal experience that this is a sustainable and enjoyable diet when combined with the correct attitude, I have lost 30lbs on this diet, with no sign of slowing down.
You also receive information on what legendary strength coach Marty Gallagher calls "3rd Way Cardio", a unique combination of strength and endurance that provides you with both more muscle and greater leanness, assuming you are, like I was, an untrained individual.
It is radical, enjoyable, sustainable, and a pretty damn manly way to eat and work out. It has made a severe difference in my physical well being.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A Conflict of Visions and Why Conservatism Needs Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions is on track to be one of the great classics of Conservatism and rightly so. I can think of no more clear and distinct exposition of the concept of "constrained vision". Perhaps no other single concept, that man's ability to predict the consequences of his actions is limited, is more blindingly obvious yet unapplied in politics. Simultaneously, it provides one of the most compelling reasons to look to tradition for truth, since real tradition is merely accumulated experience of what works and what doesn't.
The greatness of this book is crippled however, by it's own fundamentally secular worldview. Ultimately it leaves the reader with a kind of dark Stoicism, that a dark fate for mankind is fundamentally inevitable because man will always seek to create Heaven on earth and his fumbling attempts to do so will result in unleashing Hell. It's depressing because any attempt to explain the world without God is depressing.
This is where Leftism Revisited, and indeed most works by the forgotten greatest conservative mind of the twentieth century, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, comes through in spades. EVKL was the first writer that really introduced me to the concept of the constrained vision, however his treatment of the subject is foundationally different. That difference being, EVKL acts and writes as though Christianity is actually true.
My sister, studying Medieval Philosophy at Notre Dame by the way, once told me that one of the defining shifts in Western philosophy occured when the focus moved towards giving purely secular reasons for Western ideas of morality, previously justified by the Christian religion. The idea being, since non-Christians don't accept our fundamental premises, alternative lines of argument must be used to encourage cooperation towards various goals. Not a bad idea, surely, however we pretty much chucked using anything but secular arguments.
This shift has not produced the most sanguine effects for Western Conservatives. As my own conservatism grew deeper, I developed a deep distaste for much popular conservatism, seeing it as infected by a kind of mechanical and inhuman stiffness in discourse, often bolstered by disingenuous claims of secularism. While Sowell's book clearly does not fall in this category, he makes the same fundamental mistake as those who do.
EVKL's works are less Christian books and more books written by a Christian. They aren't secular philosophy with a Bible verse tacked on, but show how the most powerful, individualistic, and free civilization the world has ever produced became so through the application of Christian principles. You don't even have to be a Christian to accept this, witness Charles Maurras (albeit a rather grim example).
EVKL acts as though God actually exists and shows how the constrained vision ensures the greatest spiritual and material good for mankind, and ends with the certain hope of a better future, albeit not one that man may create. A perfect blend of hope and reality, and an approach that does not leave this blogger cold.
The greatness of this book is crippled however, by it's own fundamentally secular worldview. Ultimately it leaves the reader with a kind of dark Stoicism, that a dark fate for mankind is fundamentally inevitable because man will always seek to create Heaven on earth and his fumbling attempts to do so will result in unleashing Hell. It's depressing because any attempt to explain the world without God is depressing.
This is where Leftism Revisited, and indeed most works by the forgotten greatest conservative mind of the twentieth century, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, comes through in spades. EVKL was the first writer that really introduced me to the concept of the constrained vision, however his treatment of the subject is foundationally different. That difference being, EVKL acts and writes as though Christianity is actually true.
My sister, studying Medieval Philosophy at Notre Dame by the way, once told me that one of the defining shifts in Western philosophy occured when the focus moved towards giving purely secular reasons for Western ideas of morality, previously justified by the Christian religion. The idea being, since non-Christians don't accept our fundamental premises, alternative lines of argument must be used to encourage cooperation towards various goals. Not a bad idea, surely, however we pretty much chucked using anything but secular arguments.
This shift has not produced the most sanguine effects for Western Conservatives. As my own conservatism grew deeper, I developed a deep distaste for much popular conservatism, seeing it as infected by a kind of mechanical and inhuman stiffness in discourse, often bolstered by disingenuous claims of secularism. While Sowell's book clearly does not fall in this category, he makes the same fundamental mistake as those who do.
EVKL's works are less Christian books and more books written by a Christian. They aren't secular philosophy with a Bible verse tacked on, but show how the most powerful, individualistic, and free civilization the world has ever produced became so through the application of Christian principles. You don't even have to be a Christian to accept this, witness Charles Maurras (albeit a rather grim example).
EVKL acts as though God actually exists and shows how the constrained vision ensures the greatest spiritual and material good for mankind, and ends with the certain hope of a better future, albeit not one that man may create. A perfect blend of hope and reality, and an approach that does not leave this blogger cold.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Blueprint for Success
Barack Obama's Blue Manifesto
Has anyone actually read this?
I'll tell you what I see.
-Preventing employers from permanently replacing striking workers
-Raising the minimum wage
-No privatization of Social Security
-Invest over $150 billion in green technologies
-Insuring "fair prices" for family owned farms
-Requiring employers to provide seven paid sick leave days
-Opposing any constitutional amendment banning abortion
-Promoting economic growth in Mexico
-Increase the supply of affordable housing
-Including Iran and Syria in discussions for the ensuring the stability of Iraq (Note, less than a page later it says that Iran supports terrorism in the region)
-A "Nuclear Free World", although he will "maintain a detterent" as long nuclear weapons exist
What I see? A destruction of economic freedom. By reducing the options employers have to ensure the continued profitability of their company, the entire enterprise endures greater risk, including company failure, and a stagnation in new, now more expensive, hires. The money for supplying homes (usually the most expensive item the average human being purchases), "green technologies" that may or may not be economically viable, and promoting economic growth in a massively corrupt society has to come from somewhere. I'm guessing you and me, but I don't know for sure. Maybe the green technologies no sane investor is putting money in will pay for it all. I also question the wisdom of inviting a state that you admit sponsors terrorism to talks about the stability of it's neighbors. A "Nuclear Free World"? Shockingingly innocent view of human nature.
Has anyone actually read this?
I'll tell you what I see.
-Preventing employers from permanently replacing striking workers
-Raising the minimum wage
-No privatization of Social Security
-Invest over $150 billion in green technologies
-Insuring "fair prices" for family owned farms
-Requiring employers to provide seven paid sick leave days
-Opposing any constitutional amendment banning abortion
-Promoting economic growth in Mexico
-Increase the supply of affordable housing
-Including Iran and Syria in discussions for the ensuring the stability of Iraq (Note, less than a page later it says that Iran supports terrorism in the region)
-A "Nuclear Free World", although he will "maintain a detterent" as long nuclear weapons exist
What I see? A destruction of economic freedom. By reducing the options employers have to ensure the continued profitability of their company, the entire enterprise endures greater risk, including company failure, and a stagnation in new, now more expensive, hires. The money for supplying homes (usually the most expensive item the average human being purchases), "green technologies" that may or may not be economically viable, and promoting economic growth in a massively corrupt society has to come from somewhere. I'm guessing you and me, but I don't know for sure. Maybe the green technologies no sane investor is putting money in will pay for it all. I also question the wisdom of inviting a state that you admit sponsors terrorism to talks about the stability of it's neighbors. A "Nuclear Free World"? Shockingingly innocent view of human nature.
A Truly Audacious Hope
"If the Communists win Europe and a large part of the world it will not be because they know how to stir up discontent or how to infect people with hatred, but because they know how to preach hope." -Eric Hoffer
Barack Obama was a United States Senator for less than a year before he decided to run for President. On paper, he was a longshot, however here we sit, less than six months from an election and he is on deck to become the most powerful man in the world.
Ultimately there is only one key element for power, and that is that other people should believe that you ought to have it. A compelling reason must be presented, and no one should be shocked at Obama's success because he has remembered this one basic rule and one other, that the greatest propulsion to action is hope, even greater than fear.
Fear provides us with motivation to do the bare minimum to evade the fearful thing, however truly heroic efforts are nearly always elicited by hope of some great good. No one acheives greatness by merely surviving.
The strength of Barack Obama really is his message. He has painted a picture of a shining new era, and so the greatest of efforts have been exerted by his staff and supporters. Whether this hope is built on a foundation of sand or not is immaterial in any inquiry as to his success, although it is the greatest matter in any sensible appraisal of his chances of success as a chief executive, success being defined as a greater America.
Mankind, especially when acting in groups, is easily led astray by false hope, as any gambling addict could tell you. The only question to ask is "Do we have any reason to believe that his proposed policies will have the desired result, and if so, how can we know?"
Barack Obama was a United States Senator for less than a year before he decided to run for President. On paper, he was a longshot, however here we sit, less than six months from an election and he is on deck to become the most powerful man in the world.
Ultimately there is only one key element for power, and that is that other people should believe that you ought to have it. A compelling reason must be presented, and no one should be shocked at Obama's success because he has remembered this one basic rule and one other, that the greatest propulsion to action is hope, even greater than fear.
Fear provides us with motivation to do the bare minimum to evade the fearful thing, however truly heroic efforts are nearly always elicited by hope of some great good. No one acheives greatness by merely surviving.
The strength of Barack Obama really is his message. He has painted a picture of a shining new era, and so the greatest of efforts have been exerted by his staff and supporters. Whether this hope is built on a foundation of sand or not is immaterial in any inquiry as to his success, although it is the greatest matter in any sensible appraisal of his chances of success as a chief executive, success being defined as a greater America.
Mankind, especially when acting in groups, is easily led astray by false hope, as any gambling addict could tell you. The only question to ask is "Do we have any reason to believe that his proposed policies will have the desired result, and if so, how can we know?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)