Αντιστροφή (6). Transcendentalism..

All the highest "holy" purposes fall into "dirty" means of their realization.

At least the Jesuits were telling half the truth, and don't tell me that as the Greek proverb says, "Half the truth is the biggest lie", because this is sometimes true and sometimes not true.

The Jesuits were telling a half-truth when they claimed that a holy purpose can sanctify the means of its realization (which may, therefore, be dishonorables), because they were telling the basic lie that there are "holy purposes".

You adventurers of modern revolutionism are of course not telling the whole truth, that is to say that there are NO "holy purposes" but only human-social purposes, and you are not telling this truth, i.e. you are lying, because you are concealing the production by you of yours "purpose'' as '''holy''.

You verbally disguise, by hiding it, the designation ''holy'' in ''purpose'' with various transcendental equivalents which nevertheless mean the same as the designation ''holy''.

Like the feudal-capitalist revolution of the partisan bureaucrats, it took the institution of "minister" and christened it (at first) "Commissar".

It was the same, but the adventurous revolutionaries of modernity changed its name!

Thus the "holy purpose" changed its name and received many other names that meant "holy", the Supreme, therefore the Transcendent.

This is not just a repetition of a "half-lie" that can be "half-truth", but it is an all-round complete spherical and brazen Lie, already in the "half" of the sentence born by the Jesuits (so their more complex sentences were 'translated').

Let's go now to the other "half" of the sentence:

The Jesuits speak of legitimate "dishonorable means" to realize the "holy end", so they accept that they approve of the use of some "dishonorable means" as long as they serve to realize a "holy end".

Do the modern super-revolutionaries accept that the "dishonorable means" they will use are really "dishonorable"?

I have seen neither in Trotsky's essay nor in Lukács' statements, an honest acceptance that "dishonorable means" are accepted for the realization of their "holy purpose", which, as we said, is not called "holy'' but through other names that hidden their transcendentalism.

As for the anarchists, things are simple, and they have one name: Netzaev.

They are open in their declarations that they will use all means, not really caring to even define them as "dishonest" or "honest".

And their own "holy goal", the destruction of the state, is also not defined by them as "holy", since the modern religion of anarchism throws into the "fire of hell" any transcendentalism, whether it has the name of the "state" or it has the name of "god" ("Neither God, nor State", they say).

But why is transcendence/transcendentalism considered by them to exist only in the (term and alienation) "God" and in the (term and alienation) "State"?

Did they "forget" something? But of course, they also "forgot" themselves, their "pure, always self-determined" and rather monstrously huge Ego.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος