Friday, June 26, 2015

Hobbes vs. Eden…

Following the thought from the last post,

The “golden rule” is conceived of in opposition to the “golden age”.

Hobbes rejected natural law on the premise that it was primitive and that primitive man was, like nature, crude and violent.

Yet the Garden of Eden narrative (aka, the golden age premise of history) implies otherwise.

The reason for the parallel to the biblical story is to contextualize the explicit “spiritual” aspect of the concept of “progress”.

That society (mankind) is progressing politically/socially is sacrosanct to the narrative of the current, residing, ruling class...obviously.

To suggest that mankind is not progressing is blasphemy. To suggest that the past was better is heresy and leads to calls for excommunication.

Thus we see the calls to ban flags, historical figures, names, place-names, statues, buildings, institutions, etc, etc, that in any way stand as a testament to the past…ANY PART OF THE PAST.

And the reason for that is because the past does indeed testify to its moral, social and political superiority to the present and presumed future. 

But the past also shows us a steady decline from one century to the next. History robs progress of its claims.

And so history must no be simply rewritten, but attacked and, ultimately, denied. 

The Confederate flag today, the American flag tomorrow. Jefferson Davis today, George Washington tomorrow. And on and on it will go.

It is not a particular part of the past that is a threat to the narrative of “progress”, but the entirety of the past.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Progress vs. The Golden Age…

A fundamental difference in worldviews can be seen in contrast between those who hold to a belief in the concept of the “golden age” and those who adhere to the concept of progress.
The Golden Age premise is that there was, in the past, an ideal civilization from which human society has continuously declined.

“Progress” is the premise that human society is continuously moving towards an ideal civilization.

One concept of ‘the ideal’ is in the past. The other is in the future.

Whichever one a person subscribes to will shape much of their social/political/economic/religious/etc, worldview.

Are we surrounded by building blocks, or by ruins?

Among those who held to the progressiveist, future-positive, conception of human history were Stalin, Lennin, Marx, Hitler, Moa, Pol Pot, Jefferson, Robespierre, Locke, Smith and Cromwell, just to name a few.

Even the Puritans who settled in the new world held to a progressive outlook in their conception of the “city on a hill” motif.

At the root of the “progressive” view is a mad man’s hubris centered on the individual, at any given moment in that person’s time.

It is the belief that a single person has the power, and right, to “change the world” to fit their own preference.

Which is astounding in its arrogance and ignorance, when you consider the breadth of history against a single finite lifetime.

The Golden Age conception of history is the sanest, because it places the individual in perspective against the awesome, immeasurable and unperceivable scope of history.

We are each one among billions, all of who are caught up in the tidal wave of a continually unfolding story.

No one individual can see the whole from the beginning to the end. And yet there are some who presume to take it upon themselves to “change the world”.

We could laugh at them for being such asses if it weren’t for the fact that they also tend to become history’s greatest monsters.


Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Psychoanalysis of psychoanalysis...

When you actually look deep into the history of the concept of psychoanalysis you find it a very shallow theory, both ideologically and historically.

It’s sort of, no exactly, like religion.

You see, in the theory of psychoanalysis you have these…let’s call them, problems (guilt), brought about through “repressed feelings” (sins), and by confessing these sins to a trained expert in the art of psychological analysis (priests), you can, with his help, attain catharsis and be cured (redeemed)!

Of course, the question most likely to pop into your mind is, who determines what is “repressed” and what is “problem” and what is “cured”?


Therein is the man behind the curtain.

And he is arbitrary and capricious.

He one day declares it wrong to wear socks on Tuesday and that those who do need to be cured of the habit. He even creates a word for the malady: Tuesockism.

Are you a Tuesockist? If so, you might want to ask yourself what past trauma, prejudice or repressed memory might have triggered the condition.

Thus a problem is created out of thin air, and promulgated with hot air. And, of course, every problem needs a remedy.

Which is the astounding, and utterly magical, power of psychoanalysis: it creates problems out of thin air and then conjures the corresponding cure.

Sound ridiculous?

Then consider racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism and xenophobia.

These are, we are told, all problems today.

Strangely enough, they were not problems until very, VERY recently.

That’s because, like Tuesockism, they don’t actually exist.

They are made-up problems/offences/sins that have been given a name and then used as rhetorical currency.

Which in and of itself is hardly a novelty in the post-enlightenment era of Republicanism and democracy, where rhetorical currency has been liberally printed out of thin air to both advocate for one novel political ideology or group and to slander and delegitimize competing ones; or even your immediate ideological predecessors.  You can never have just one revolution, now can you.

Funny enough, beneath the surface of these political/ideological struggles one finds an ethnic and racial foundation.

Freud was a jew who, surprisingly, found very few problems among his people but all kinds of “issues” among European peoples, with whom his people were, coincidentally, in a constant historical power struggle.

Or look at the Cold War. It’s amazing how much the Soviet Union came to look, feel, sound and think just like the old Russian Empire. In the end the “soviets” became Russian, not the other way around.
That’s because the Cold War was not ultimately about communism vs. capitalism but simply Russia vs. Great Britain and America. It was Moscow vs. Washington, just as WWII was really Berlin vs. London: Germans vs. English.

And so today we find that those most commonly diagnosed with the problems of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc, tend to be overwhelmingly male and of European descent.

The accusers? Well, generally they tend to be not so European in descent. No, they do tend to be predominantly jewish.

Yes, certainly there are genuine ideological converts from among Whites. And none are more zealous than the convert.
 Which is why when you have a jewish leftist and a gentile leftist together the gentile always comes across as more wild eyed and fanatical than the jew. That’s because the jew shouts racism and anti-semitism as merely a weapon to win a war, whereas the White is a true believer.

Never-the-less, the majority of those who incessantly declare their contempt and hatred of European peoples and champion their demise, are jews.

Thus the made up sins of “racism”, “anti-semitism”, “homophobia” etc are merely the current weapons in an asymmetrical war for power and dominance.

After all, why go out and fight the enemy in battle when you can just get them to sit around and feel bad about themselves?

Yet, if European peoples are to be completely destroyed then Asians will come to be the next competitor.
And Asians lack the sort of altruistic tendencies that make Europeans vulnerable to attack through reflective “psychoanalysis”.

Which is to say, if Europeans were to disappear today and China were to rise to power tomorrow and conquer and enslave neighboring countries, concepts such as “racism”, “misogyny”, “anti-semitism” and the like would never be uttered again.

Because they never represented genuine wrongs or problems to begin with. They were only ever used as weapons designed specifically to attack and overthrow Europeans and their civilization.

The Chinese would require a whole new strategy.