Who is the Angel of America? Who is His Vicar on Earth?

A culture does not subsist in virtue of its members, or of their mere vicinity. Nor does it subsist in any formal specification of its systematic relations – laws, customs, language, technics, rites, and so forth – or of the propositions about reality upon which those formalities are founded, and from which they derive. Nor even does it subsist in the agglomeration of its people and the body of formal specifications of their systematic coordination thrown somehow together.

This, in just the way that I do not subsist in virtue of my cells, or of the formal specification of their systematic coordination. Rather, my cells and their formal coordination subsist qua mine in virtue of me.

The regnant occasion of my body, and of my life, is just me. I am the angel of my body’s life. I am the concrete real in whom the formal specification of its systematic coordination first subsists so as to be strangely attractive to my otherwise wayward cells and organs and subsidiary control systems. The relations constituting the system of me are very like those of feudal vassalage. My subsidiaries are loyal to me for the sake of their love for me, and mine for them.

So likewise a nation subsists, not in its people or in its laws or in the system of propositions in virtue of which those laws make any sense, but rather in the concrete angel who is its regnant occasion, to whom its components are all strangely attracted, and by whom they are all domesticated to his house, ordered and coordinated.

You are the angel of your body, and of its life. You are your soul, brought to life – inspired, or enspirated – by the Holy Spirit. You are the regnant occasion of your body, in virtue of whom it lives. That does not mean that you are something added to your body. It means only that your body is what it is – a living, coordinate body of a man – in virtue of your soul, which is its form. Your regnant occasion is, of all the sprites who in you live, the one most noble and alluring, to whom they all pledge their fealty – more, or less (the latter being the factor of illnesses moral, physiological, and spiritual).

As you are the angel of your body and its life, so there is an angel of you. He is your guardian angel. As when your body sickens you suffer and you, the regnant occasion of your body, cannot do what you normally do, let alone what you ideally could do, so when you err and sin and fall away from the order set by your regnant occasion – your angel – he suffers, and is frustrated from the attainment of his natural ends.

The body is not the cells thereof. These live and die, cycle in and out of it. Nor is it the arrangement of those cells; for, an arrangement is not an actual thing except insofar as it is concretely implemented. It is in the order of the regnant occasion, by whom its order is concretely expressed, that the body consists as a living animal, engaging all the subsidiary animals – their material constituents, their souls, their lives – of whom it is built, and in whom it is then manifest.

So also with society. There is an angel of every culture, a regnant occasion – often, usually, he was identified with the king – and there is in turn an angel of the regnant occasion of a culture, that like him has a life of his own, to which the life of the king subsides.

In Deuteronomy, the Holy Spirit tells how each of the nations was assigned an angel. YHWH kept Israel for himself. YHWH then was the angel of Israel, and Israel – the Patriarch Jacob – was under him the angel of his People, as later were his heirs: Saul, David, Solomon, and Jesus.

Who is the angel of America? Who that genius? Not YHWH, who is the angel of the Church. Call him America, until we can identify him with his true Heavenly name. Who then is America’s earthly vicar? Who is the King of America?

It seems that America has never had an earthly vicar. But perhaps he has been always present, yet hidden, like Arthur in these latter days at Avalon. Perhaps the King of America is sleeping in a cave somewhere. Or perhaps like Parsifal and Moses he labors menially and unknown in some wild fastness, ignorant of his nobility, like Tom or Huck or Penrod.

He must be out there. For the vicar of America is that man in any generation who most perfectly exemplifies the peculiarly American virtues. And there must ever, logically, be such a man.

There is always a king.

40 thoughts on “Who is the Angel of America? Who is His Vicar on Earth?

  1. Pingback: Who is the Angel of America? Who is His Vicar on Earth? | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. A necessary clarification. Scripture reveals the names of only three angels: Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. It is not permitted and is exceedingly dangerous to “name” an angel by any other name, because not all angels remain with the Lord God. Therefore it is not permitted to name an angel “America”.

    It is permitted to call any angel by any of the three names of angels revealed in Scripture. They don’t mind.

    The demonic is very real and close at hand. Never call on the name of any power not explicitly revealed in sacred Scripture as being allied with the Lord God.

    • “America” is a placeholder, nothing more. It is a variable, and calls no particular angel by his proper name. A fortiori, it calls down no angel.

      Thanks though for the caveat. It is well.

  3. Pingback: Who is the Angel of America? Who is His Vicar on Earth? | Reaction Times

  4. I take it you are referring to Deuteronomy 32.8, which speaks of nations separated by–heaven forfend–“boundaries!” I think your reading of “gods” as guardian angels is reasonable, although the word is easy to confuse with idols and demons in that context. But in the overall context of the Song of Moses, I’m left in some doubt whether America is a nation. And, if it is, the Song of Moses must be for it a very chastening tocsin. North America was, as the first colonists understood, a New Canaan–a “land of milk and honey” as it says in Deuteronomy 31. And just as the Song of Moses predicts, in “the land of milk and honey,” the nation(s) goes whoring after “strange gods.”

    • That was indeed the passage I had in mind. Whoring after strange gods is evidently a perennial hazard for any nation. The same thing happened to the Greeks and Romans. And by that I don’t mean to indicate their conversion to Christianity, but rather their abandonment of their chthonic gods, hundreds of years BC, to whore after Persian and Egyptian and Babylonian gods.

      There is a great difference between a national conversion to Christianity and conversion to the gods of some other nation. Christianity is the cult of YHWH, who is the King of all the angels. A proper and complete devotion to one’s rightful true national angel is therefore implicitly a proper worship of YHWH; and worship of YHWH restores a nation to its proper devotion to its rightful true national angel, who is himself an obedient vassal of his Heavenly King. Thus, e.g., the Germans became more German than ever when they converted to Christianity.

      But when a nation abandons her patrimonial angel in favor of some other, that’s whoredom, and depravation, and eventual ruin both moral and economic.

      • That’s an interesting way of casting the argument that the nations are called upon to be themselves, and not to try to hasten the Millennium by plunging into Babel. From what I’ve read about tutelary spirits, they are not so much defenders as advisors. The Romans, for instance, believed each man had a bonus Genius and a malus Genius, one pointing him to his destiny and the other to his ruin. Perhaps nations also have a good angel and a bad angel, the one pointing them to an honorable destiny and the other to ruin (self-annihilation). If this is true, it become easy to pick out their respective oracles.

      • Just so. Genii mali have an easier job than their adversaries. There are many more ways to err and stray from our proper way like lost sheep, than to cleave to the strait and narrow path that ascends. And most of those errant ways seem much nicer, in the short term. They lead down.

  5. Kristor: According to America a Prophesy by William Blake, the Angel of America is Orc, the Spirit of Rebellion. (Boston has a separate sub-Angel, unnamed.) According to Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Angel of America is either Orpheus or the Overmind; and according to Walt Whitman, it is Myself. Harold Bloom, who relies on Blake, Emerson, and Whitman, asserts that the Angel of America is Metatron. I daresay there is a pattern in these assertions that might explain aspects of our recent cultural history! I incline to JM’s suspicion concerning the question whether America is a nation, but I share your implicit thesis that America, whatever it is, desperately needs an Angel.

    P.S. Maybe there is an American nation, anchorless, rudderless, floating around the cartographic space called America, bumping into all of the other anchorless, rudderless nations and caroming off them. God, does that American nation ever need an Angel! At the very least it needs an anchor and a rudder — and maybe throw in a sextant and a compass.

    • Metatron seems like a reach. America is not *that* important.

      One possibility, not unlikely, is that the angel of America is just the angel of Albion, or a vassal of that angel’s house.

    • Angel versus demon. Liberty is a real good. Equality is incoherent prima facie: you can’t obtain disparates that are also equal. I conclude that equality is the demonic principal.

      • Kristor:

        [Political] Liberty is a real good.

        Completely disagree.

        Political liberty, liberty as justification for the exercise of authority which by its very nature restricts liberty, is the primary self contradictory principle of liberalism. It begets equality, and from the two of them the unholy fraternity of the modern self-created superman proceeds.

        Political liberty – liberty as principle of political action – is self-contradictory liberalism. The root of right liberalism (a.k.a. modern conservatism) is in the failure to grasp this basic point.

        Political liberty, equality, and fraternity are the one unholy trinity which is liberalism. It/they must be rejected unequivocally, totally, without qualification or rationalization. I’ve explained why, and run through all the objections, in great detail at my blog.

      • Ah, but Zippy, one must be careful not to put one’s own words into the mouth of an interlocutor. I did not mean to suggest, and certainly did not say, that *political* liberty is good per se. Indeed, I think that “political liberty” is an oxymoron. I was suggesting only that liberty simpliciter is a good; and this, only because it is a condition of souls wherein authoritative agency is to some degree distributed across a society of intellects, increasing the velocity of social adaptation to changing circumstances, *that can actually come to pass;* whereas equality is a condition of souls that logically cannot ever come to pass.

        Chasing equality then is like hunting the frumious bandersnatch. It is not out there to be found. Chasing liberty, on the other hand, is like the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is really out there to be had. But just as you can’t get happiness by pursuit of it, but rather only by being good, so you can’t obtain liberty directly, but only by a righteous and proper ordination of social relations.

        This because liberty simpliciter can come to pass, NB, *only* within strict social limits. It is an artifact of constraint. Absent such constraints, there is no liberty ever to do anything but fight. I have made this abundantly clear in many posts and comments here at the Orthosphere, one of them published just the other day.

        Liberty then, as I have also repeatedly argued, is not a principle of politics. It is a secondary, derivative feature of social order, here or there more or less manifest.

        But then, nor do I think politics itself a principle of social order. Politics appear in societies that are somewhat disordered, so that they must consciously deliberate (sometimes violently) upon the proper form of their coordination. A properly ordered society will not manifest a political discourse.

      • Kristor:
        Perhaps it is at least marginally valuable feedback to you that when you sing the praises of liberty you come across as right liberal, or at least as having failed to achieve escape velocity, at least to me.

        As for politics (which just is the concrete ways in which authority is structured and exercised in a polity) not being a principle of social order, that strikes me as utopian nonsense. In fact one way to look at liberalism is as an attempt to abolish politics, a.k.a. the exercise of authority; or minimally to view the concrete exercise of authority (politics) as a bad thing.

      • But isn’t Kristor referring to “the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free,” and *not* political liberty – liberty as justification for the exercise of authority?

      • Yes. The freedom of the will is not a justification for anything in particular. It is, rather, a mere condition of our actuality. It is furthermore – like liberty in a society of intellects – conditioned upon righteousness. No goodness, no true freedom. But this dependence of freedom upon righteousness is but an aspect of the far more general principle that a defect of goodness is a want of actuality. As righteousness disappears, so does being, and with it the freedom that appertains to being.

      • Oops! Please disregard my last comment – looks like Zippy’s objection I was responding to has been removed.

      • That’s weird. I have no idea how Zippy’s objection disappeared. I approved it, then approved it again, then replied to it. I blame WordPress.

        For the record, here was Zippy’s objection:

        Kristor:

        [Political] Liberty is a real good.”

        Completely disagree.

        Political liberty, liberty as justification for the exercise of authority which by its very nature restricts liberty, is the primary self-contradictory principle of liberalism. It begets equality, and from the two of them the unholy fraternity of the modern self-created superman proceeds.

        Political liberty – liberty as principle of political action – is self-contradictory liberalism. The root of right liberalism (a.k.a. modern conservatism) is in the failure to grasp this basic point.

        Political liberty, equality, and fraternity are the one unholy trinity which is liberalism. It/they must be rejected unequivocally, totally, without qualification or rationalization. I’ve explained why, and run through all the objections, in great detail at my blog.

      • More weirdness: WordPress also vanished my response to Zippy’s objection. Here it is:

        Ah, but Zippy, one must be careful not to put one’s own words into the mouth of an interlocutor. I did not mean to suggest, and certainly did not say, that *political* liberty is good per se. Indeed, I think that “political liberty” is an oxymoron. I was suggesting only that liberty simpliciter is a good; and this, only because it is a condition of souls wherein authoritative agency is to some degree distributed across a society of intellects, increasing the velocity of social adaptation to changing circumstances, *that can actually come to pass;* whereas equality is a condition of souls that logically cannot ever come to pass.

        Chasing equality then is like hunting the frumious bandersnatch. It is not out there to be found. Chasing liberty, on the other hand, is like the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is really out there to be had. But just as you can’t get happiness by pursuit of it, but rather only by being good, so you can’t obtain liberty directly, but only by a righteous and proper ordination of social relations.

        This because liberty simpliciter can come to pass, NB, *only* within strict social limits. It is an artifact of constraint. Absent such constraints, there is no liberty ever to do anything but fight. I have made this abundantly clear in many posts and comments here at the Orthosphere, one of them published just the other day.

        Liberty then, as I have also repeatedly argued, is not a principle of politics. It is a secondary, derivative feature of some social orders, here or there more or less manifest.

        But then, nor do I think politics itself a principle of social order. Politics appear in societies that are somewhat disordered, so that they must consciously deliberate (sometimes violently) upon the proper form of their coordination. A properly ordered society will not manifest a political discourse.

      • Yet more weirdness from WordPress. A response from Zippy to the comment just posted again immediately supra has also disappeared from the public view of the site, although not from the back office view of comments. It is:

        Kristor:

        Perhaps it is at least marginally valuable feedback to you that when you sing the praises of liberty you come across as right liberal, or at least as having failed to achieve escape velocity, at least to me.

        As for politics (which just is the concrete ways in which authority is structured and exercised in a polity) not being a principle of social order, that strikes me as utopian nonsense. In fact one way to look at liberalism is as an attempt to abolish politics, a.k.a. the exercise of authority; or minimally to view the concrete exercise of authority (politics) as a bad thing.

      • Zippy:

        I’ll take that feedback into account. In noticing that liberty is a good, I don’t apprehend myself as singing liberty’s praises, but rather only as stating a fact.

        I take politics to be the discourse by which men try to ascertain the character of the social order proper to them and their circumstances, when that character is in some doubt among them – when, that is to say, they are not all in complete, clear and easy agreement about it. Now, to be sure, that perfect agreement is nowhere quite to be found under the orbit of the moon – not until the Millennium, anyway. Nevertheless is it the homeostatic strange attractor to which all societies converge asymptotically.

        Is politics a bad thing? Not at all. It’s just one of the ways that men seek the Good together. It is a department of philosophy.

      • To truly abolish the exercise of authority is to self-annihilate. In the meantime, to merely attempt to abolish the exercise of authority is to perpetuate self-annihilation, i.e., perpetuate “liberalism.” Given enough perpetuating self-annihilators delusionally operating under the pretense of indiscriminate self-creation (read: spontaneous creativity/random destruction), a “default elite” manifests verifying the original complaint.

        “Liberalism” abolishes the exercise of authority via self-annihilation and a “default elite” is a refutation of itself. And such “refutation of thyself” exactly describes Western “leadership” across the political spectrum.

        Present day Christians are culpable in facilitating this self-annihilation even as they seemingly argue for an established authority.

  6. Anyone interested in the angels of the nations idea should visit Gregory Boyd’s arresting book God at War, which is one of the books listed as an Orthospherean resource. He begins with the Old Testament book of Daniel, Chapter 10.

  7. Hello Kristor,

    I think the logic of defining liberty as a good leads to some of the conundrums that the fusionists faced 50 years ago. If liberty simpliciter is good it follows that all impediments to liberty must be done away with.

    • I don’t think that does follow. That liberty simpliciter is good does not mean that no other goods may take priority over it. By analogy, exercise is good, but that does not mean that impediments to exercise – e.g., work, sleep, study, family duties, prayer, charitable work, public duties, and so forth – should all be shouldered aside to make way for exercise, 24/7.

      My life is good, simpliciter. That does not mean it should take priority over all other lives, or all other goods. Indeed, if there is nothing better to me than my own life, then my own life isn’t very good in the first place, is it?

      To every thing there is a season.

  8. Kristor:

    The auto-delete-Zippy function that WordPress has decided to implement makes commenting here frustrating. But suffice to say the following:

    To the extent we stipulate a completely (ahem) apolitical liberty which basically means “we have free will and that is good”, there is also an apolitical equality which basically means “God loves all of His creation”.

    If we are talking about the spirit of the polity that is America, though, liberty is the demon.

    • [Zip, I have no idea why you are suddenly having such difficulty commenting here. Sorry! No one is doing it; it just seems to be happening. One of your comments, which I had approved, disappeared perhaps 15 minutes later, *along with my reply.* Not in Trash, not in Spam, but … nowhere. Busted links to both those disappeared comments remained in the Recent Comments widget. Go figure.]

      I disagree about the etiology. You argue that it runs liberty → equality → fraternity. But notice that some degree of liberty and fraternity are endemic to social order as such. No matter what their station in the social order, people will always be able to make their own authoritative decisions about *something or other,* and there are always going to be siblings and bands of brothers. But equality is *never* achievable in a society, because its achievement would be the obliteration of social order. It is impossible to coordinate disparate entities except under a due recognition of and accommodation to the real qualitative differences that make them disparate in the first place.

      It is not liberty that is at logical war with authority, but equality. Highly ordered societies can manifest a great deal of individual liberty (and fraternity). But if it is true that everyone is equal, period full stop, then all authority whatsoever is illegitimate – and so is all preference, such as that of fathers for their own children, or brothers for their siblings; for all authority is expressed as a preference for this over that. So equality destroys not only all hierarchy, but all familiarity, all association.

      Equality is the shibboleth. Its pursuit is inherent madness, and ruins every other aspect of social order, including liberty and fraternity. So I conclude that it is equality that is the demon.

      We agree that liberty as conceived and carried into practice under the authority of a liberal government is incoherent.

      Liberty can be carried coherently – sanely – into practice only under an illiberal government, in a culture that does not take liberty to be a First Thing of social order, but rather a derivate, secondary feature.

      • Kristor:

        No sense beating around the bush or restating arguments already made many times. Obviously we just disagree. From my point of view you are simply confirming your right liberalism. It may be as minimalist a right liberalism as can be; but it is right liberalism nonetheless.

      • A feudalist advocate of Polybian kingship is a right liberal, eh? Really?

        What would suffice to get me absolutely out of the right liberal category? Absolutist totalitarianism? Or no, even that would not suffice, I suppose; for, the totalitarian Absolute Dictator himself would still have a jot or two of liberty; in them alone could his capacity to act authoritatively, and thus exert government, consist; without them, he’d be a robot. Presumably universal lobotomy or replacement of humans with mechanical automata are not the ticket. Perhaps what would be needed is a blanket condemnation of all authority whatsoever: anarchism. Hobbesian war. That would get rid of liberty altogether.

        I suppose you get my drift here. Anathematizing liberty is a reductionist error of the same sort, but with a different mathematical sign, as idolizing it. Either way, liberty becomes a fetish. A determined attempt to organize society under such a fetish (whatever its sign) cannot but end in social disorganization.

        Liberty just isn’t that important. It’s a byproduct, an after effect. It’s a mistake to focus on it, as we have done since 1750. What’s important is whether social order is Good, or not. What’s important, i.e., is Justice, conceived under its ancient Greek character of krasis.

        The proper lodestar for societies then is neither liberty, nor equality, nor fraternity, nor their opposites – these all began to be consciously noticed as items of concern to European civilization only during the 18th century – nor anything at all other than the Good. Ordination by that star will result in a social order asymptotically approximating to Justice, that fosters Righteousness. Because men cannot be all equal, it must be hierarchical, with some men exerting more authority – some men more powerful, prosperous, free – than others. Because men are all familiar, willy nilly, that order must find them all more or less familiarly related. There’s no other way to have a society. You *can’t* get rid of authority, and you *can’t* get rid of families.

      • Kristor:

        Your explicit rejection of liberty as the core liberal principle, your embrace of liberty as a social good distinct from equality (as opposed to recognition of it as equality’s generative principle), mark you out as a material defender of right liberalism.

        Heck, upthread you described liberty as America’s angel, as opposed to equality her demon. Maybe you meant it as a very unimportant angel. Opposing liberty to equality and marking out the former as good and the latter as bad is a strong indicator of right liberalism.

        Sure, you’ve got other ideas/commitments too. But that is a red herring. Everyone has other ideas/commitments too.

      • But I *didn’t* say that liberty is the angel of America. You had suggested that liberty and equality were the two angels of America. I responded by suggesting that equality is a demon. About whether or not liberty is the angel of America, I was silent.

        I don’t think liberty is the angel of America. Liberty is a property, not a potential actuality in its own right. To suggest that liberty is an angel would be sort of like suggesting that dexterity is an angel. The same goes for equality. So our back and forth about whether equality or freedom are angels or demons was all figurative.

        I doubt the angel of America is enmeshed by the political categories of Jacobinism. I should think that a Principality would transcend such historical evanescences.

        Arguendo, consider a society of two, Jack and Jill. Jack has total authority over Jill. Jill may not do anything at all unless he tells her to do it, even down to scratching herself. Jack has also total authority over himself. Jack has all the power in this society – which is to say, all the liberty. Jill has none. It is a totalitarian society; Jack’s authority over Jill is complete, and perfect. The society is maximally authoritarian, and maximally illiberal. There is no equality in it.

        But notice that there are the same number of potential acts to be ordered – the acts of two living agents – no matter how authority is distributed between Jack and Jill. There is just as much total liberty in the society with Jack as absolute dictator as there would be if neither Jack nor Jill had the slightest authority over each other, but only over themselves – if, i.e., they did not constitute a society at all.

        Given constancy of its material circumstances, you can’t reduce the total liberty of the society except by killing either Jack or Jill. All you can do is shunt the liberty around somehow between Jack and Jill, giving him authority over some sorts of acts, and giving her authority over other sorts.

        Clearly, it is not the liberty of the society that engenders equality. Equality could be engendered in this society only if liberty were sorted between Jack and Jill so that each of them had exactly the same amount of power.

        And that immaculately even sortition of power cannot possibly happen, *because Jack and Jill are different.*

        Not only is liberty unable to generate equality, *there is no such thing as actual equality.* It can’t be engendered in concrete actuality by *anything at all.* You can’t even get two photons that are equal. Equality is a formal relation that cannot possibly be achieved between actuals. This, under Leibniz’ Identity of Indiscernibles. The only way that you can get equality of two actuals is if they have *exactly the same properties.* But if they have exactly the same properties, *they are not two, but one.* 5 + 3 = 8 is just a way of saying that (5 + 3) and 8 are *the same thing.* They are not two different quantities.

        I don’t reject the idea that liberty is a core principle of liberalism. Liberalism rather obviously takes liberty to be a core element of Justice. But then, *liberalism is false.* As you have so often so ably demonstrated, liberalism is incoherent prima facie. I *reject* liberalism. I.e., I reject the idea that liberty is a principle of Justice.

      • I was led to think that you were suggesting that liberty and equality were two “angels” contesting for America by the fact that you wrote here at the Orthosphere that:

        It is possible that America has two angels, locked in mortal combat since her birth …

        And then linked to a post at your blog which began:

        We’ve seen that the principles upon which all liberals agree – that the primary purpose and justification of politics is to secure freedom and (concomitantly) equal rights – are incoherent …

      • Kristor:
        The (fallen) angel I had in mind was liberalism. The angel with which it contends is the concrete “America the beautiful” – beautiful despite liberalism not because of it – of the linked post.

        We do appear to disagree about the nature of liberalism, in addition, since I see liberty as its most primary principle with equality as concomitant.

      • Ah. I see now what you meant. Sorry I mistook you. There is a lot to be said for that notion; Whig versus Tory, etc.

        It may be that liberty is indeed the primary principle of liberalism. Certainly it is one of them: a member as you say of the unholy Jacobin trinity of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. In our discussion in this thread, I have not been so focused on that, as on whether liberty is a primary principle of Justice. I think this might have led to some confusion.

        If we stipulate that for a liberal the highest value is liberty, then yes, equality follows (in the imagination of his heart) straightforwardly.

        It’s just that equality doesn’t follow from liberty – or from anything else whatever – *in the real world.* In real life, and so in Justice, there is never equality.

        And, of course – to reiterate – liberty is not a principle of Justice, but rather (like prosperity) one of its byproducts.

  9. Pingback: Orthodeontia | Zippy Catholic

  10. RE: “Liberalism” abolishes the exercise of authority via self-annihilation and a “default elite” is a refutation of itself. And such “refutation of thyself” exactly describes Western “leadership” across the political spectrum.”

    Perhaps what you speak of is the dark side to the impulse behind the Civil Rights movement; an initially noble and well-intended Civic and Christian gesture but which, when pushed to its theoretical extremes, becomes that ‘self-annihilating’ agency that you’ve bemoaned in so many ways on these blogs; perhaps it’s the lack of moral charter or specification of degree, that is causing the problems. The egalitarian instinct is no good if it’s not countered, or rather co-reinforced, by an ideal, rather that aspiration be individualistic or collective —– but its agreed-upon rectitude need not be OF SPECIFIC ETHNIC FORM!

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s