Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2011

Live Export - Labor's failure to take a moral stance

By Michael Kennedy




The Labor government has shown that it is morally spineless by failing to make compulsory, pre slaughter stunning which would save the animals that we profit from, from the misery of appalling and barbaric slaughter techniques that exist elsewhere in the world. If we are to be honest, poor treatment of animals happens here in Australia as well, that cruel slaughter methods are used. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie stated that he would still move on a private bill to make stunning prior to slaughter compulsory. Despite the failure of the government to act on issues of moral importance, such as live export, the housing affordability crisis and the continued social engineering policies against Australians, we can't forget there is still a small minority of politicians who have a moral compass more in line with the needs of the country, and who haven't sold themselves out.


The fact that this issue is even considered debatable show how far we have to go in regards to animal rights. Some people still haven't moved on and discarded Descartes damaging philosophy that animals are merely machines, unconscious and unaware of their surroundings and unable to feel pain. Others, who are probably even more callous, acknowledge that animals can experience suffering, but simply prefer to disregard it, and dismiss it as a necessary step to obtain meat, eggs, dairy product and profit. While it can be argued that meat isn't necessary, and that humans could live without eating any animal derived food, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that suffering is necessary if we choose to use these products. Animals can be treated humanely and their deaths don't have to be painful, prolonged and drawn out, but it costs money. Eggs from free range chickens simply cost more than eggs from chickens de-beaked and kept in cages without room to move or turn. Given the choice, some people will still choose the caged eggs. Given the choice, some people would say that caged eggs are better than no eggs.


Are people just callous then? Some yes, but for many others, it is the distance between them as a shopper and the animal which makes such a decision easy. Place an example of a battery hen, a real live hen in front of the 'caged eggs' and a free rage hen next to the 'free range' eggs, and some people may change their minds. If someone wanted meat and they had to kill the animal themselves, there would be many people rethinking whether they really want ham in their sandwich, or chicken nuggets with their chips and vegetables. An “animal rights” equivalent of graphic cigarette packets. Nothing would make people vegetarian faster than forcing them to slaughter their own animals. Not even mad cow disease could turn people off meat that quick.

But this isn't likely to happen, and allowing customers to choose just isn't good enough. When people don't have to THINK before they buy, and the food industry makes sure they don't think the wrong things, the government has to prevent this excessive suffering.


We do hope that live animal export laws are drastically altered in Australia, even if it means that Nationalist Alternative have to be the ones to do it. The issue extends beyond the export of live animals, we must examine our practices here and not tolerate any slaughter practice or treatment of animals which is less than the most human treatment we can offer. Callousness towards animals is an indicator of callousness towards people. Profit and the economy cannot continue to be reasons to be callous towards living things. After all, I'm sure that the prohibition of slavery economically disadvantaged hard working entrepreneurs, but the benefits, which cannot be measured economically outweigh any cost. We are better people because of it. A greater regard towards animal welfare would undoubtedly make us better people, but being better people isn't something our current government (or for that matter, the major opposition party) is interested in.


But in some ways, we treat each other like animals, living things to be exploited for profit, whether employees in debt slavery, parents gouged by high housing costs or young single people trying to make their way in early adulthood. Everyone’s focus seems to be on how productive we are, how much profit we can make, how much we are willing to let our standard of living slip to compete with foreign workers, how much we 'cost' to society because we get old and sick. Farmers, who are already struggling, and already gouged by big business in Australia, have little recourse but to simply oppose any further prohibition in live exports. A country with a greater degree of innovation and ability to adapt and change could offer transitional plans that won't see farmers go to the wall, but again, it's simply not a price people are willing to pay. They will simply not win the support of those who respect animals, by making it an argument of economy.</p>

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Thoughts on life's meaning?

By Michael Kennedy




If someone was to get a chance to see our creator for a day, what would
be the question they would most likely ask? "What is the meaning of
life?". Unofficially regarded as the big question of life. Why are we
here? What is the purpose of life? What function does it serve? All
forms of the same query, the same desire, to seek meaning for our
existence, to seek the goal the eludes us. Biologically, we have a
reason to exist, to procreate.

In its rawest sense, life is a system, a
self replicating system that has no goal but is as mindlessly driven as
the rotation of the galaxy, the crashing of waves on the shore and the
falling of rain. Like the forest fire that takes a life of its own,
fire creating fire, life is the complex outcome of simple chemical
reactions. The simple idea that one organism will create another as a
function of its existence, is the reason we are here, and the reason
life will continue. In fact, it could be argued that virtually
everything we do, is done in order so we can procreate. So much effort
is exerted by people, in order to make themselves desirable to the
opposite sex.

People have children, despite the fact that it there is
no economic gain. Clothing and make up make us look appealing. Why do
we eat? To live, so as not to die. Why do we not want to die? It's a
natural instinct that necessary to allow an organism to procreate. So
we fear starvation, because we fear the death that comes with it. In
doing so, we can procreate. Why are we largely attracted to the
opposite sex? Again, an instinct designed to make the organism
procreate. A living organism exists and functions, to make another that
is the same. It's a simple idea that is the basis of anything that
could be considered life, however, despite our awareness of this fact,
we still ask, why? The biological reality to us, doesn't explain why,
only how. The reactions that burn down a forest explain how, but not
why. We are part of a fire, but why are we burning? Why did it start?
Who started it?

Some look to religion, and it does provide a very clear account of our
purpose, what we should do, where we should and eventually will go. It
tells us why the fire was started and who started it. Religion can be
seen as a means of filling the void, of providing that deep, internal
satisfaction of being part of something greater, part of something
bigger than ones self. It provides a sense of duty and an eternal,
otherworldly reward for servitude and goodness and an eternal,
otherworldly punishment for rebellion and sin. For these people, the
afterlife, being greater than anything that can be found during their
earthly existence also makes the earthly deeds greater in significance.
The goal a good Christian works for is bigger than anything humanity
can provide and bigger than any reward anyone can give. This outlook
alone is sufficient to completely change a persons view of life, to
change the way they approach day to day activities. One person can help
feed someone, and only see only ending hunger as the result. Another
person can help feed someone, and feel that they are carrying out a
divine mission by being a good Samaritan in the eyes of God. Two
people, exactly he same action, but two completely different outlooks.
The latter person, no doubt, feels a greater sense of satisfaction in
their act of charity. Not only a greater appreciation for the
significance of their act, but a greater sense of fulfilment with their
life. He feels that he is living his life for a divine purpose, that he
understands why he is here, and he knows what he needs to do.



Does religion offer an answer, or does it indicate our desire to give
our life meaning, to answer the question, what is the meaning of life?
Religion may or may not offer the answer, but it exposes the holes in
our life. By seeking the answer, we learn what the question really is.
If the widespread popularity of religion in an age where science
provides comprehensive knowledge of the universe tells us anything, it's
this, that our existence is unsatisfying.

For many, the meaning isn't given by religion, but by popular society.
With the every increasing importance of 'happiness' and material wealth
and success, living the high life is ever increasingly becoming the
purpose of life for many. Their life is fulfilled with satisfying the
gut and the groin. Simplistic pleasures, short term goals,
near-sightedness and narcissism are terms that could describe the ends
that many people seek today. Their life is bereft of meaning, the
emptiness is exploited because human need is exploitable. By being this
way, they make themselves exploitable and this is evident in the
consumer society, which almost by definition, is a society waiting to be
exploited. Life becomes buying the better piece of technology, the
larger car, the bigger house, a faster car. Go get a good looking woman
to hang on your arm as some sort of trophy or personal ornament.
Witness professional team sports players, the idols of today, who are by
no accident, the most narcissistic, shallow and self indulgent people
that one will see in the media.

This consumerism of the masses is feeding a smaller proportion of people
that desire to profit from it. This argument is well known and there is
no need to elaborate. Leftists, socialists and the like will have no
trouble pointing this out, along with many other disenfranchised members
of humanity, that have grown weary and become cynical of such
activities. However, acquisition of wealth is not the only motivating
factor for people. Power, survival and social goals can be just as
strong a motivating factor, if not stronger.

Those who claim that everything in the world is done for profits, that
money make the world go around ignore this. In fact, assuming the
profits move everyone blinds one to religious fundamentalism, tribal
warfare and many other aspects that mobilise many people into action and
struggle, even though they may not profit in the material sense. By
aligning oneself to a group of people, by taking up religion, you not
only find an identity, but offer yourself to the group. The profit
motive is strong our our society, only because other more important
motives are so weak. It is our decadence, our belief that we have no
further purpose to enhance and build ourselves, which leads to lesser
goals, such as material acquisition, corporate ladder climbing and
building a large financial portfolio coming to the fore.

Our profit driven society is a symptom of a weak society, one near death.

Patriotism, as demonstrated in the U.S. is not only popular and
financially profitable, but also a means by which a government can offer
meaning. By identifying with the government, sympathising with military
forces fighting a so called war on terrorism, and feeling that they took
part in the process they feel a sense of fulfilment, by achieving a
goal. Consumerism, popular society, religion and many other movements
are out there to offer answers to people, and when the people are devoid
of meaning, it makes the exploitation ever so much easier.

Whatever a person's thoughts are as to his purpose in life, it's one
that is both a discovery and a creation. People who dedicate their
lives to a task will see their purpose as one of carrying out that task.
A soldier would dedicate his life to his country, a preacher would
dedicate it to God and a comedian to making people laugh. A suicide
bomber gives his life for his liberation and by doing this gives his
life meaning. Except for the suicide bomber, over time, peoples goals
might change, they may re-appraise their life, find new goals and
priorities. Their purpose and meaning of life is a transitory one, and
for most people that is that case. Study, raise a family, leave a mark
on the earth. Someone's outlook on life will change with the change in
the seasons of life. The task of raising children is every increasingly
been make to seem a lesser and lesser task, and an ever increasing
burden. The spirituality and significance of childrearing has been
attacked and degraded, and with this, the sense of fulfilment and
meaning has been degraded. Tribalism has been attacked and degraded, and
with this, the sense of kinship and place in this world has degraded.
With the sense of kinship degraded, the need to create new members of
society is diminished as well. Without these aspects, the opportunities
to find meaning and kinship are limited and people feel empty and
alienated. Without kinship, the group is open to exploitation, is made
weak and can be moulded. Therefore, we need to view the trend against
motherhood with suspicion and look to whether there are ulterior motives.

These human needs exist within us, they are not manufactured nor dreamt
up and created by the minds of men and women. They are discovered, not
taught. Biology does not give a spiritual basis, religion does. Both
serve a purpose to humanity, yet neither is complete. We are driven by
biology, by instinct, but in humans, particularly Europeans, these can
appear weak, to the point where people en-mass rail against their
instincts towards their own destruction. Furthermore, instinct can
easily be overridden by indoctrination and thought control, as such
systems such as Communism or its younger cousin, Political Correctness
require. With the overriding of instinct, people can be given a
completely artificial purpose that does not benefit them nor benefit the
community. People can be given artificial instincts in which end up
destroying themselves, and to such an extent where people are not only
aware of their self destruction, but even consider it a virtue, part of
necessary progress, as evidenced in the Western world.

Looking back, we can see that biological instinct and natural law exist
to aid our survival. Many of our impulses are designed to ensure that
happens in obvious ways, such as seeking a mating partner, and in less
obvious ways, by a desire to help the community, as a strong community
aids our chances of survival. Religion is a system that provides meaning
and purpose to these desires. The laws laid down in the bible regarding
sexual behaviour are designed to make any form of sexual activity that
does not lead to conception a sin. For a biblical community, especially
a small one, such behaviour can be harmful, where child mortality is
high and violent competition prevalent. In this instance, biology lays
down the law, religion re-invents it with meaning.



So far, three sources of meaning have been discussed, the first is the
innate biological drive, the second is indoctrination by religion and
society, and the third is the personally created meaning, such as a
profession or hobby. With so many drives and priorities, no wonder we
can't find the one true purpose! Except for religion, none of these
purposes are universal anyway, and they don't answer the question, why
am I here? We can exist, for no apparent reason, and then find or make
some sort of reason during the course of our lives. But still, its
personal, doesn't explain humankind, and its different for each person.
The fact is, unless there is a God that we are eventually going to
meet, we'll never know. The only thing that is known, is that a
combination of natural forces, evolution and selection pressures gave
rise to a species that, because of selection pressure, grew in
intelligence, and until now, kept growing. We are a product of the
universe, the outcome of millions of years of evolution. We adapted and
used intelligence to survive, the best kept on going and got better
until we became not only the dominant species on the earth, but its
masters, able to control it at will.

Nature, the dominant force in our lives until civilisation moulded us
into what were are now, a species able to create a civilisation that is
so dominant in its life. That civilisation, not nature becomes the
primary moulding force. We have taken natures guiding hand, natures
powers of creation over us away from her and made ourselves the
custodians of our species. We are literally domesticating ourselves to
be suited to an environment we created! That environment we create is
then a result of our self domestication.

Evolution for humans has stopped. There is no more natural selection.
Disease and weakness is less and less a force that culls the unfit. Our
ability to provide for ourselves limits our numbers, not nature. At
least in the Western world, such as in Australia, artificial
limitations, such as seemingly arbitrarily high house prices, or the
economy, have a greater impact on the size of families, than natural
carrying capacity.

Our ability to create a strong society decides which group of humans
survive, not nature. No longer is our genetic make-up changing and
being selected, but our ideas are. The best ideas will decide who
survives and doesn't, not the genes, though our genetic make-up does
influence our ability to create ideas. More importantly poor ideas,
such as mass immigration and assimilation have the ability to destroy
types of people. Memes can destroy genes. An idea can find success,
yet be detrimental to those who hold it, such as Liberalism, an idea
which dooms itself to existence by its own actions and takes those who
don't abandon it with it.

We are still somewhat the product of our genes, but also our ideas. We
hold the destiny of both. Originally, procreation was mentioned as the
reason for our existence, but we've inherited everything else that goes
with it. Our purpose, our meaning in life, is to do what nature did.
To be custodians of ourselves and the society that supports us, to keep
the ever present urge for ourselves to advance alive and to keep
carrying out the advancement of ourselves to whatever goal is possible
and to protect ourselves from corruption and de-evolution.

Like a Christian Samaritan who may take in the homeless, and felt that
they was doing this for a purpose bigger than themselves, our existence
and contribution to society can be seen as more than just survival, but
as a means to advance us physically and intellectually. We can see our
simple tasks as being part of something greater. We can view our nation,
not just an a state vehicle that just 'exists', but as a creation, a
work in progress, an entity that can be whatever we want it to be.

It may seem rather ambitious to talk about the meaning of life, and to
offer an answer, but the question isn't really all that difficult. We
know the laws of the universe, the laws of nature which govern our lives
and dictate what is possible and what is not and prescribe for us with
almost perfect reliability, the outcomes of our actions. We know what
nature has created and we know the nature of creation. Why this all
exists we don't know, but that may not matter, as its a philosophical
question of little practical importance, because we also possess an
awareness of the nature of life, with its joys and misery.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Nietzsche and the Revenge of the Non-Whites

by David Ellerton



Philosophy and politics don't usually mix. But sometimes philosophy can shed light, in an interesting way, on political problems. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, I believe, can be applied to one serious political problem afflicting the West today: I am speaking of the desire, of millions of non-white immigrants to the West, to 'pay back' the white man for hundreds of years of colonialism and privilege.

I will not summarise the philosophy of Nietzsche here; instead, I will focus on one element. That element is revenge, and as readers and admirers of Nietzsche know, revenge plays an important role in that great thinker's philosophy. An account of Nietzsche's doctrine on revenge can be found in a paper by University of Wisconsin professor, Lester H. Hunt, 'The Eternal Recurrence and Nietzsche's Ethic of Virtue', at http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/ER&VIRT.htm .

So what does Nietzsche mean by revenge? It is the desire to right past wrongs:

As he describes it, revenge is essentially an attitude toward time itself: it is "the will's ill will against time and it's 'it was'." It is the result of the fact that, from a certain perspective, the past appears both to need changing and to be impossible to change, so that the will is left painfully powerless, "an angry spectator of all that is past." Among the effects of this painful condition is a desire to cause additional pain, either to oneself or to others: "on all who can suffer" the will "wreaks revenge for his inability to go backwards." (II 20.)(4) Revenge is responsible for the ideal of equality, the urge to punish, and the excessive desire to be just (II 7). Among the other works of revenge are... a longing to escape from this world (II 20).

(All references in footnotes are included in Hunt's paper). So what are the implications of wanting revenge? Is it healthy? Beneficial? Clearly not, according to Nietzsche. It stands in the way of (what we moderns would call) psychological wholeness, spiritual fulfilment. One part of that wholeness is the development of generosity in oneself, what Nietzsche calls the 'gift-giving' or 'bestowing' virtue:

Conceived in this way, revenge has a very broad impact on human life; Zarathustra says, "it has become a curse for everything human that this folly has acquired spirit." The trait he is describing here is purely reactive, negative, and destructive. As such, it is just the sort of trait Nietzsche would see as standing in the way of virtue. In obvious ways, it is the opposite of the spontaneous, enthusiastic, and creative activity he calls "gift-giving virtue" elsewhere in Zarathustra (I 22). Getting rid of revenge, if that should be possible, would plainly be a long step toward achieving virtue as he understands it.(5) In fact, Nietzsche more or less tell us so himself: "that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope" (II 7).(6)

The implications of all of this are wide-reaching and profound. Certainly, we can all see, in our own lives, a desire to 'right past wrongs'. Perhaps that desire, too, stands in the way of fulfilment. All of what Nietzsche is saying here occurs at the individual, moral level; that is, at helping the individual reach a level of spiritual fulfilment and self-actualisation. Those who embrace revenge deny themselves that fulfilment and become stunted human beings (I will explore, in part, Nietzsche's solution to 'the problem of revenge' later).

But how does the doctrine become political? In order to become political, it must be applied to a very large number of human beings, and here I am thinking of the millions of non-white immigrants who have come to the West in the past thirty to forty years.

In that connection, I found the following comments on a message board to be of interest. They were by African immigrants, in response to an English-language news article, 'Illegal Immigrants to get New Rights in Sweden', at: http://www.thelocal.se/32372/20110303/. I will reproduce some of them here:

22:28 March 3, 2011 by penzy

I have read some of the comments here and I am not surprised even though it is a bit sad the way some people prefer to come and display their overt ignorance for the whole world to see.

Okay so Sweden has decided to be kind and nice to other people in need and some of you have reservations. Rightly so, afterall who would want to be taken by surprise in his own household. But let's get some facts straight.

Some of us (immigrants), are here not because we feel this place is heaven. No, it cannot be. Sweden cannot in anyway take away the kind of atmosphere and environment I get in my continent. But circumstances which did not start so soon dictates that I should be here. And so am here by hook or by crook.

#1. When your great grandfathers came to my continent to kidnap my great grandfathers, they came ILLEGALLY. You called them EXPLORERS! In the same vein, those of us who are here (whether legal or illegal), are here to EXPLORE and you view us as ILLEGALS who should not be here. What do you think my great grandfathers were thinking when you were kidnapping them to come and WORK for you!

#2. After all these years of inflicting such pains on us, you have not even compensated us for the wrongs you did. Infact, you are still enslaving us economically. (Afterall, slave trade was all about economics). You are still coming to buy my cocoa seedlings at a cheaper rate (no, your own rate) and then you bring it back to me at a price beyond me which then encourages people to do what they have to do.

#3. This has led us to come to you and beg for loans. Loans you give to us at a higher interest rate and then you impose your own kind of politics which is capital intensive. That has led to corruption, erode our cultural lives and many more. Why do you think there are a lot of kidnappings in Africa? How come the Ogoni people in Nigeria cannot farm anymore because your desire for oil is polluting their land and taking their livelihood away.

Take the three reasons (there are many more) into consideration and think about it. If only you will be fair to us. If only you will honestly deal with us like you deal with your kinds. If only you will leave us to have our own unique political system, maybe, just maybe, I would be back in my continent basking in sunshine instead of having heavy clothes on me.

You sow what you reap, the bible says. You sowed something and here we are. You came to us in the name of God and now, we are here telling you about this same God you told us about and to share in the profit of what you took from us.

Is this not fair enough?

[...]

Another African gentleman, who is nowhere as eloquent as Mr 'Penzy', more or less has the same message:

23:05 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge

Crazy to hear this, whe European come to Africa, Asia and arabian countries and take our every thing, they were not illegal, when we come here to enjoy our natural resorces, which they are still taking from ours, the we are illegal, shame on you, go back to history. wait the fire is coming to you cowards

23:49 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge
Look at this crazy Chortlle

From UK, why are u forgeting what you did in Africa you English people, you did everything bad for us, like french, like every European guys and you still doing it using the so called stupid presidents you force us to accept them using our resources. we are here to get our Gold, our diamonds back, got it crazy

The responses, overall, to the news article at this message board were quite intelligent and well-written: there are a lot of educated, articulate and thoughtful people, on both sides of the political fence, in that forum. Most of it, though, I had heard all before (that is, pro- versus anti-immigrant opinons); what struck me was the position of the immigrants themselves. The anti-colonialist ideology espoused by Mr 'Penzy' was fairly typical of the Third World ideologues in the post-colonial era (e.g., the 1950s and 1960s): e.g., the Black French intellectual Franz Fanon, the dictator of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, who was a pioneer of 'African socialism'. Quite a few on the radical Left still uphold it, and, for all I know, it could be still be current in certain African countries today.

Does it represent the view of a number of immigrants to Europe and elsewhere in the West? I think so. But we have to be clear, most immigrants come for economic reasons: they want 'a better life', and feel that they are entitled to it in the West. To do so, they will pay any amount of money to people smugglers, come up with phony stories of political persecution and abuse, submit themselves to any level of hardship, indignity and danger (including drowning, in boat trips from North Africa to southern Europe), and, once in Europe, will work in menial, badly paid and insecure jobs and face risk of deportation or imprisonment in one of Europe's tens of thousands of detention centres - really concentration camps. The motives of the immigrant are not ideological, they are economic. But, when ideology comes into play, it is the ideology of anti-colonialism, and, ultimately, revenge - revenge on the white man.



And this gets right to the heart of the matter. The immigrant ideology is, above all, impudent. A country like Sweden takes in huge quantities of Third Worlders, gives them shelter, food and clothing, and now, thanks to the Swedish government, free education, health care and the 'right' to start a business; what's more, Sweden does so regardless of the effect such policies have on its own people - (e.g., overcrowding, shortages of housing, health care, school places, a growing sense of alienation which comes about through the breakdown of an ethnically homogenous community). One would expect gratitude on behalf of the immigrant - and surprise that a foreign government is doing such a thing (after all, no African or Middle Eastern government would do the same for white people). But instead, the attitude is: 'I'm going to pay you back, white man - for  blood diamonds, stolen oil, and slavery, and all the other crimes of the past... You'll reap what you have sown!'.

Much has been written, by nationalists, on the sanity of the white, Western politicians who are pro-immigrant - are they mad? But little has been written on the question of the sanity of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants are not fleeing some humanitarian catastrophe. In 2010, 128,000 immigrants tried to gain access to Greece, and there is a backlog of 46,000 applications for 'asylum'; clearly, if these were all refugees, they would be fleeing the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since the end of WWII, when millions of (mostly German) refugees fled, in fear for their lives, the advancing Red Army. But Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and the Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh) are not in such a condition. So the question is, why is it that immigrants do what they do? The British tabloids are daily full of accounts of immigrants (mostly Arab or Indian) trying to enter Britain through the French port of Calais by clinging to the underside of lorries, hiding in garbage bins, refrigerators, tubs of chocolate, etc., being taken to Britain by truck. Given that, and the 'ideology of revenge' described above, one has to question the sanity of many of these people. So the immigrant problem becomes a kind of psychological/philosophical problem.

Nietzsche's answer to the problem of revenge was the doctrine of eternal recurrence. That is, one's life will repeat itself, exactly as it is now, an infinite number of times in the future - and it has done so an infinite number of times in the past. One will live the same life over and over again, experiencing the same hardships and sorrows, and the same joys, without change. The classic Bill Murray movie, 'Groundhog Day' (1993) depicts this idea, except that the Bill Murray character is conscious of living the same day, over and over again.



What does this have to do with revenge? In the theory of eternal recurrence, time really has no beginning - there was no point, in history, when the process of time began. There may have been a big bang, a point where the universe was created. But there were an infinite number of big bangs in the past (as there will be in the future); so, one cannot say where the 'starting point' of time itself was. The implication of this is that there is no point where time (or history) will come to a stop, and all wrongs will be righted. There is no point for the African immigrant to migrate to Sweden, and 'get his revenge on the white man' for 'the crimes of colonialism', because the peoples of Africa will have to undergo their sufferings and hardships (blood diamonds, stolen oil, slavery, etc.) an infinite number of times in the future. In other words, there is no 'happy ending' for the African immigrant, where his people suffer, under the jackboot of the Western colonialists, and then finally become free and take their revenge on the evil whites. As Hunt writes:

For vengeful thinking - in fact, for any sort of intelligible use of the concept of punishment - the story that has the happy ending must not end at an arbitrary place. Suppose that Billy the Kid kills six people and then is captured. Our vengeance - or whatever drive it is that is gratified by punishment - is not satisfied if he overpowers his jailor and escapes. Nor is it satisfied if Billy is recaptured and executed, but somehow rises from the dead and commits six more murders. Our urge to punish will not accept it as satisfactory if we end the story of a punishment at some arbitrary point simply to create a happy ending. Revenge cannot knowingly do such a thing. If Nietzsche is right about the eternal recurrence, however, there is no natural place to end the story of the world. Time is not naturally divided into cycles which, like a replayed movie, have beginnings and ends. There is simply no non-arbitrary place at which we can decide that our story ends and no reason, other than the need for a happy ending, to end it at any particular place. Our desire to create art can be satisfied by such solutions, but our sense of justice cannot.

So far, then, the eternal recurrence frustrates revenge and - so, at least, we can hope - makes room for virtue by making it impossible for revenge to solve the problems that it sets for itself. Revenge aims at the satisfaction of feeling that something is being done about the evil past, but it cannot achieve this satisfaction unless the vengeful subject can think certain thoughts and see things in a certain way. Recurrence makes such states of mind impossible. It does so by healing a fissure in the world - a break in time - that the vision of vengeance requires.

Again, the implications of this are profound, and one could write a (much longer) essay on them. Here we can only state the problems (the psychology of immigration, the non-white's ideology of revenge), and not come up with a solution. Nor can we fully answer the question, 'Is Nietzsche's solution adequate?'. My short answer is, 'No'. One should not underestimate the power of ideas to affect large numbers of people: certainly, the immigrant 'Penzy' came under the influence of someone who themselves was under the influence of a Fanon, Nkrumah, Lenin or Marx. But, all the same, it is too much to hope for  to expect that immigrants, after reading, and taking on board Nietzsche, will stop emigrating to the West in the millions. It would be akin to a mass religious conversion. Millions of people would have to examine their motives, very deeply and thoughtfully, for wanting to live in the West, and ask themselves if they really will find happiness there (a happiness they feel 'entitled' to).

At the same time, certain of Nietzsche's ideas can, I think, have a powerful effect on the white intellectuals who ultimately the determine the course of our civilisation. It is this topic that I shall explore in a future essay.