Saturday, January 07, 2006

The Missionary Position

Lord, save us from those who would save us from ourselves.

A small minority of people live in a world today that is so remarkably different from others that it is the terror of the world's larger population to witness. We who live in the world of the modern West are so different from the rest today, and so different from our ancestors, that we nearly resemble a new species of Humankind. We are not only different in our lifestyles, in our opinions, in our concepts, we are different in our nature as people: we are Revolutionaries cut off from the rest of Humanity. Thank God for it!

Until 5000 years ago man lived the life of pastoralism, of hunting and gathering, the equivalent of dumpster-divers scrounging for edibles in the garbage cans of the world. Then, a revolution in farming: men planted and sowed crops and settled and raised up cities and states. From then on Man became a farm animal, mostly the farm animal of another, owned and used.

Three revolutions have changed that condition of Man in the past 250 years, and there is hatred toward those revolutions that does not die out but grows in intensity and fury among those who reject our revolutions of Modernity.

The world of Islam is ruled by the ethos of the wild men of the 7th century dumpster-divers of the Arabian Peninsula, of roving thieves and murderers, of Mohammad and his killer thieves. These are some of the world's most primitive people, and they are enraged by the Modernity of the West, as are many Westerners. All seek to destroy Modernity, to return the world of men to slavery and violence, the roots of fascism, the Hell of savagery as it is in the natural world, but painted now with ideology and sentimentality. There are Muslims who wish to return the whole world to a time of primitive warrior culture, a time when the strong killed, enslaved, raped, and stole as a military ethos of power; and there are those who wish to return man to the land, to a time when all men were slaves not of Allah but of the landlord, the priest, the king, those being today the state, the intelligentsia, the U.N. Modernity makes men individuals, and the rage against Modernity is the rage against man as Man. The individual is not subject to the rule of the system, whatever that system might be; and thus, those who would rule are enraged.

Man is a social animal. We gather in groups, as married couples, as families, as friends, as clans, tribes, nations. We communicate. We are social and communal. The concept of privacy is a radical revolutionary concept. Privacy is an affront to the communal group and to the social group. Privacy is a shameful and dangerous thing, one that destroys the group. Those who are private, who have things, ideas, feelings of their own that they do not allow possession of to the group, those people are threatening to the group. We are those radical revolutionaries. We are the threat to the group. They mean to incorporate us into the body again or they mean to kill us. The primitive Muslims and the neo-feudalists of the West mean to destroy our revolutions of privacy and individuality, and they mean to control Man again as a farm animal-- at best.

Who are these monsters who would return us to the fold, who would destroy our privacy, who would reclaim our lives as theirs to tend? Aside from the Muslims, who are savages and hardly count except as killers and rapists, the enemies of Modernity are those Left dhimmi fascists of the West's Modernity who hate the idea of free men, free in that men own their own lives as private possessions, men who can be outside the group and outside the sphere of control of the philosopher kings who would rule all for the common good and their own. These monsters are social workers, social engineers, social planners, social managers, simply socialists, collectivists, communalists and commune ists. "We are the children of the world." "Back to the land." "Give back to the community." "The circle of life." "We are all brothers." We are not, according to the Left dhimmi fascist, men. We are children. We are all part of some huge man-farm and we must be tended like dumb beasts. We must remove ourselves from the evils of cities where we do not live within the confines of the farm, from cities where men are isolated from the tenders. We are all brothers, and our parents are the government. We must give back to the community, not being ourselves but part of the whole, and being selfish, not giving to the community, we are threatening to the whole. We have ideas, and we have privacy, the right of ownership of our own lives to live as we will. And it's all a circle of life, not a matter of progress, not a matter of Man's volition, not the choice of a man to do as he will, but the round of seasons in the eternity of rural idiocy tended by the rulers who know better than we.

The history of capitalism is one of horror. Whether one refers to Blake, to Zola, to Engels, to Henry Mayhew, to Upton Sinclair, the record is plain: capitalism was the end of life as it had been for 5,000 years, and it was worst. What benefits there were to be found in capitalist modes of production were only given to the few, and fewer than to those of the feudal era. The Human suffering caused by capitalism is enormous and the spiritual devastation remains with us today unabated. The bloodshed of the French Revolution's Terror was ghastly. And the summation of those revolutions is seen in the American Revolution today: a small number of the world's people rule the world and do much as they please, tearing up the old social relations that have been in place for 5,000 years and longer, and all for the sake of more capitalism. many in the West are horrified by the result of capitalism, and they want to destroy it and return the world's people to a time prior to capitalism, to a time of feudalism, but this time a benevolent feudalism, tenders with velvet gloves and welfare cheques in hand.

Capitalism was and is destructive of life as it had been and as it still is in most of the world. Capitalism destroys daily the life of man as he has lived it forever. There are those who would stop capitalism. Some try to do so by returning the world to Islamic fascism, and there are others who would return the world of life to the feudal past. They work together. They are the enemies of Modernity. They are my enemies. And yet, to an extent, I have sympathy for them and their quest. Still, I will destroy them at every opportunity, like I would destroy rats in the granary. Capitalism destroys the old world's social relations, and damned rightly so.

Below we see a brief outline of a missionary journalist, Henry Mayhew, who walked the length and breadth of London in the 19th century interviewing poor people. The catalogue of horrors he details will sicken the average reader. Mayhew's purpose was palliative, to tend to the poor as a social reformer, as one who could alleviate the unwarranted suffering of the working classes. Rightly so. The man is heroic. His work was completed but it still goes on, and on and on and on, and there is no end to it. It goes on. What began as a campaign to aid the poor is a campaign today to rule the poor and to infantalise the world for the sake of the rulers of men. they will not stop until every man is ruled by the man-farmers who live by social work.
****

Henry Mayhew (1812-1887)

Henry Mayhew was born into a wealthy London family, one of seventeen siblings. As a youth Mayhew was rebellious and ran away from boarding school, causing his father to enlist him involuntarily in the East India Company as a means of instilling discipline. After returning from this service Mayhew briefly tried a law career, but found it distasteful, quickly abandoning the profession to become a freelance journalist. Unable to support himself through this work, Mayhew moved to Paris to escape his creditors. In Paris he became part of a circle of young expatriate novelists and writers and in 1841 Mayhew collaborated with his friends to found the satirical weekly serial Punch. In 1849 Mayhew accepted the journalistic assignment that would define his career, agreeing to become the London correspondent for a large-scale survey of Britain's working poor, sponsored by the Morning Chronicle newspaper. His unflinching treatment of the life of the poor was shocking and controversial and his contributions were often censored by the editors. By 1850 Mayhew either quit or was fired from the project, but continued to publish articles on the London poor independently until 1852. These articles were later collected and published in four volumes titled London Labour and the London Poor (1861).

Innovation

Mayhew approached his work on London Labour and the London Poor ethnographically, venturing directly into the poorest parts of London to interview his subjects directly. The first three volumes contain biographical sketches of the flower girls, cat and dog meat dealers, pickpockets, prostitutes, and others who struggled to eke out a living in Victorian London. His writing captured the conditions of their daily life and recorded their utterances in a form that many have described as the best oral history of the period.
http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/25
****

So-called Palestinians are the darlings of the West's social workers. The Palestinians are the made equivalent of London's labour, London's poor; and they attract each and every missionary kindergarten minder on the planet, it seems. Palestinians wear the faces of the future of neo-feudalism. They are psychotic and murderous children, and they are made so by social workers and missionaries. Mayhew was a wonderful man, and he died, and that was his time and his place. He is replaced.
****

In the United States of America, leaders and scholars in the field of social work have debated the purpose and nature of the profession since its beginning in the late 1800s. Some social workers, beginning with the settlement house movement, have argued for a focus on social reform, political activism, and systemic causes of poverty. Social workers of the Settlement House Movement were primarily young women from middle-income families and chose to live in lower-income neighbourhoods to engage in community organizing. These workers sometimes received stipends from charitable organizations and sometimes worked for free. Formal training programs for these workers became available later in the movement.

In contrast to the settlement house movement, the friendly visitors were women from middle-income families who visited (but did not reside among) families in lower-income neighbourhoods. Friendly visitors emphasized conventional morality (such as thrift and abstinence from alcohol) rather than social activism.

Others have advocated an emphasis on direct practice, the pragmatic assessment of the problems of individual clients and families using targeted material assistance and psychotherapeutic intervention. While the pendulum swung in favor of direct practice in last quarter of the twentieth century, there is a growing resurgence of community practice in social work.

Community practice is the new term of art for what used to be known as "macro" social work. Community practice includes working for change at the systems level, including human services management (administration, planning, marketing, and program development); community organizing (community development, grassroots organizing, policy advocacy); social policy and politics; and international social development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work
****

What were educated middle class women to do in the late 19th century if they were barred from the professions because of their sex? Yes, they turned to professional baby-sitting, and they baby-sat the poor. They took to their baby-sitting a religious missionary fervour that continues to this day. These childless women infantalized the poor, turned them into helpless and dependent little nothings who would forever depend on the power of the parent. Righteous? There is no end to it. And those who object to their mission? How much more evil can one be than to dismiss the concerns of professional mothers?
****

THE STATE BOARDS

In the 1860s a new movement appeared that we now associate more directly with the evolution of early social work. Tagged with a variety of names: State Board of Charities, Board of Public Charities, Board of Charities and Corrections; the state board movement sought to bring some order to the management of state institutions. Many states experienced an institutional building boom, in part the direct result of Dorthea Dix's reform campaign before the Civil War.

In the 1850s and 1860s many Eastern states joined this public construction boom. They erected reformatories, prisons, mental asylums, poor-houses and orphanages. It soon became apparent that these institutions not only did not solve the problems that created them, but presented new problems in institutional management. Beginning in Massachusetts in 1863, states began appointing boards to oversee and manage the operations of their institutional structures. The idea quickly captured the imagination of early charity workers. In 1865, a convention to establish a national association was called. More than three hundred delegates attended.

The leaders of the boards turned to the then popular philosophy of science to create a new type of charity management: "scientific charity". This approach melded some of the new ideas about science with the principles of efficiency, which were being so impressively applied to business activities. In the words of historian James Leiby Scientific charity was to be:

...secular, rational and empirical as opposed to sectarian, sentimental, and dogmatic.
More interested in studying social problems and management difficulties than in developing new techniques and skills, the state board movement's direct influence was relatively brief. It was quickly eclipsed by similar advancements among private charities. However, the pioneers in the state board movement were the first charity leaders who tried to develop a more systematic and rational approach to their work and to push it away from its traditional association with religion. The state boards took the first steps in developing charity work into a distinct activity.
http://www.idbsu.edu/socwork/dhuff/history/chapts/1-2.htm
****

With the end of Christianity comes the new religion of science, or, for those who know nothing of science itself, scientism, the pseudo-science of social science. All the moralistic fervour of missionaries now combined with the new religion of science, unshakable, and righteous.
****

A History of Christian Missions : Second Edition (Hist of the Church)
Stephen Neill, Owen Chadwick

For those interested in the history of modern missionaries and their project of infantalizing the world's people, we suggest the title above. for those who wish to know more about the metastasis of Christian missionaries into philobarbarist, please continue here:
****

Christian socialism

[A] term used in Great Britain and the United States for a kind of socialism growing out of the clash between Christian ideals and the effects of competitive business. In Europe, it usually refers to a party or trade union directed by religious leaders in contrast to socialist unions and parties. The movement was begun in England in 1848, after the failure of Chartism. Influenced by Carlyle, Southey, Coleridge, and the Fourierists, rather than by Marx, such men as John Ludlow, Frederick Denison Maurice, and Charles Kingsley sought to encourage the laboring masses and the church to cooperate against capitalism. They published periodicals and tracts, promoted workingmen's associations, founded (1854) a workingmen's college, and helped achieve some general reforms. Though their experiments in producers' cooperation failed, their traditions were carried on by the Fabian Society, by adherents of guild socialism, and by several Roman Catholic groups. The movement in the United States was organized with the formation (1889) of the Society of Christian Socialists, although there had been earlier activity by Washington Gladden, Richard Theodore Ely, and others. 1
See C. E. Raven, Christian Socialism, 1848–1854 (1920, repr. 1968); J. C. Cort, Christian Socialism (1988).http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Christ-soc.html
****

Forming like groups is a natural condition of Man. We who live in the modern West form groups by choice; those who would return us to the brotherhood of man would form us as a group regardless, and they would tend us as if we were field animals. The hate our privacy, needing to know all our thoughts and deeds to ensure they can correct us or punish us for our transgressions. If we infringe, they will come to us with scientific certitude and religious fervour of missionaries who must make us right, though we can never truly be so.

We who are Modernists are rebellious. We have walked away from the farm, left the family of man and become Men. God, they hate us.

Lord, save us from those who would save us from ourselves, for otherwise we shall be Palestinians.

1 comment:

dag said...

Some notes on the illustrations:

#.s two and three are of the Panopticon, the observation post in the centre of a penitentiary from which the guard can see all around without the knowledge of the prisoner who only knows that he might be seen. The word penitentiary comes form penitance, being a place to rue ones past wrongs and come to a clearer understanding of the Good.

Illustration # 4 is from George Orwell's 1984, a scene from the movie in which men sit and rewrite history around the clock, ensuring a continuous purity of politically correct nonsense.