Wednesday, July 12, 2006

To Hold the Strangling Hand (2)

Philosophers love wisdom, and it is their life work to understand reality and the ways of Humanity through high degrees of abstract thinking to arrive at theses that might or might not be a further path to knowledge of the good and the real.

Philosophes, on the other hand, are less abstract in their intellectual approaches to the discovery of the good and the real, tending toward the practical in governance and civility.

Newton's formulation of the three laws of motion and law of universal gravitation prompted many Europeans to approach all study of nature through reason and logic. The philosophes were a result of this new approach to learning who encouraged reason, knowledge and education as a way of overcoming superstition and ignorance. Philosophes Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert edited the Encyclop├ędie (1751-1772,) which represented the philosophe belief that everything could be known, classified and understood by man. It also questioned religious authority and criticized social injustice. They believed that the role of philosophy was to change the world, not just to discuss it.

Deism: Many philosophes rejected organized religion as a means of holding back human progress. Those philosophes critical to religion claimed that Christianity prevents humans from seeking improvement in their conditions by teaching ideas such as predestination and original sin....

Toleration: Many philosophes believed that toleration was the means to a virtuous life. They believed that toleration would combat the religious fanaticism that prevented humans from bettering their condition....

Philosophy is divided today. Those who are classical philosophers in our time are generally Natural Scientists, those dealing in abstract if useful sciences such as physics rather than metaphysics. Today, the philosophes are those we term Social Scientists, those dealing in fields such as sociology and political science, for example. Stephen Hawkins on the one side, and Noam Chomsky on the other.

The American Founding Fathers were philosophes. They were revolutionaries and social activists. Jefferson, Paine, Franklin. They were, in the classical sense, liberals. Today's liberals are, in the classical sense, reactionaries, those who struggle against the Liberalism of the past ages. The Left is counter-revolutionary. They are the enemies of social progress. Most of today's social activists are the enemies of Humanity, struggling to restore the feudal order prior to that of the Revolutions of America, France, and Industry. They are neo-feudalists trying to turn Man back to a time when all were masters or slaves, all bound by the feudal ties of the commune and it's duties and privileges, its titles and obligations. It is a longing for the restoration of primitive fascism. The Left is the old Right. In fact, there is no difference. Most of today's philosophes are fascists.

Through the course of this blog we have looked at the origins of political fascism from the time of Plato through the Watt Tyler Rebellion and particularly from the French Revolution to our time. The common theme throughout is a fear and hatred of individuality, a rage and violence against those who are not part of the group and of those who deny the validity of group life. We see over and again a reaction against those who would be free to choose for themselves and to act for themselves in their own interest as opposed to the will of the family, the tribe, the clan, the commune, the state, the culture. We see fascism at work in all cases. From here we will again look at the philosophes of today to see the fascism of the Left in the form of social activists who would strangle Man as man in the attempt to keep him bound to the group, to the commune, to the whole.

There are homosexuals in our society. In Canada, a nation of 30 million people, they are perhaps one percent of the people. If one were to look into the influence homosexuals have on the general population's attitudes toward homosexuality, one will not be surprised to find they have inordinate influence. In fact, homosexuals are almost paramount in the mind of the nation as people of value by group identity alone. One might ask why homosexuals are so central to the life of our nations across the West. Why them and not other "victims of society"? All non-White people are victims of Western society, Whites being aggressive and unfair to those subjected to the racism of Whites, and so on. But what of White victims of Whites, of women and homosexuals? There we have it. And we extend the victimisation plan to drug addicts suffering from medical conditions, criminals suffering from poverty and lack of opportunity, and so on, and so on. None of these victims are so as individuals but only as identifiable members of oppressed groups. Individuals are themselves and responsible for themselves, but as a group they are identifiable as members of an oppressed group, a group that leaves out the qualities or lack thereof of the person as he is. No X is responsible for his behaviour if he is acting as a member of the group. All Xs are victims not of themselves but of another group, the weaker needing protection from the stronger. The point being that the group now needs activists to protect them from the onslaught of the more powerful group, and the activists needing the group from which to have a cause to fight for, to give meaning to their lives, to make money from, to gain status by being a part of and not a part of the Other, the evil oppressor group, a moral high-ground in defence of the weak. Thus we see the rise of "Identity Politics." Thus we see the rise of Social Activists. Thus we see the suffering of the Palestinian! People! and other such scums elevated to the heights of Humanity for no reason whatsoever other than the needs of the agents of social change. The philosophes of today need the homosexuals and the Palestinians and the rest for the sake of life, meaning, status, and mere cash. Here comes the Islamophobic. Start writing cheques to the agents of social change who will protect the Muslims from us.

Throughout the course of this blog we have charted the rise of Individualism throughout history as it eventually culminated in the triune revolutions of Industry, France and America. Those revolutions are the revolutions of Modernity. Those revolutions are of individuality opposed to communitarianism, of man as opposed to the herd. We've looked at the ownership of private property as one of the fundamentals of our Revolutions. Private property allows for the privacy of man's ownership of his own life as his own property. It rankles the mind of the fascist, the primitive communitarian, the herd man. Those who cannot accept man as individual act to revert man to his state of farm animal. To bind a man to a group and groups to the whole of primitivism is to manage a mass and to bind them all. One cannot control individuals such. Agents of social change are people farmers. In their binding of man to man and man to them, they are the ones who extend the helping hand that strangles all in one fist.

Fascism: "The name comes from the Latin fasces – a bundle of rods with a projecting axe, which was the symbol of authority in ancient Rome."

Today's agents of social change are not the revolutionaries of our modern history. They are fascist philosophes. Modernity is the end of the feudal era, and the philosophes of today wish to return man to the time of communes and titles and privilege, to a time of neo-feudalism. Today's agents of social change look backward to the Golden Age to find their utopian model of the good. Whether Left or Right they look backward to a time when men were huddled together in a group, tended by the priests of awareness. These people long for the end of history, a time when there will be no change, perfection being reached and all else a lessening and decay of the perfect. these people who lead the world to the past are fascists who would bind men and rule them, if not with the axe then with guile and socialism and guilt and pseudo-religion. These people do not love wisdom for the sake of knowledge of it and its benefits to all but they love their vanities, their status, their cash, their fancy shoes and their poses struck like Mussolini on the balcony.

Our intelligentsia are fascists. Our philosophes are poseurs and dangerous to the life of Man. Our philosophes live not for abstractions of thought and morals but in a phantasy world of apocalyptic utopias of the fascist mind in which they are the gnostic priests of total control. That is as far from philosophy as one is likely to find in intellectuals, and the most frightening for us. We must stop them before they use their proxy minions to blow us up on buses or shoot us to death in the streets, kill our children in schools or blow us up in cafes and fly our planes into our buildings. To stop the agents of social change we must become agents of social change ourselves.

How many homosexuals are there in a nation? In Canada there are a few thousand, the proverbial small minority of extremists who've hi-jacked a nation of peace for their own devious ends. There are perhaps no more than 500 social activists who have transformed the Western nations and turned them into sewers of dhimmitude. 500 social activists. 500 philosophes have turned our lives and the Western world into a nightmare of dhimmitude and primitive triumph. It will take 500 philsophers to change our path again to the future.

Tear away the hand we hold as it leads us to the past. Crush the strangling hand.


truepeers said...

Aristocracy and Democracy: we all, each of us, combine both in some way. And knowing you as I do, Dag, I'd say that ours is not simply a struggle of the individual against the fascism of uniquely correct ritual behaviour.

Consider that the model for the activists we oppose is the Holocaust that we would never defend: i.e. what the activist desires is to find herself in defense of a victim group from which, according to the Nazi-Jew model, all signs of individuality have been taken, the whole reduced to naked, starving bodies as the last earthly sign of their "Jewishness".

An individual can die a tragic, i.e. meaningful, death; but not a million whose murder transcends the possibility of meaningful individual stories, and is reduced to Stalin's mere statistic. Our activists want to defend groups supposedly reduced by the oppressor to naked, defenseless bodies, to a statistic, because their's is a victimization that cannot be disputed, for which there can be no question that the victims are in some degree individually responsible (a resonsibility that accrues, in contrast, to the figure of the tragic hero). Indeed, any evident scarcity of individuality (as with, say, the often hysterically chanting Palestinians) becomes a boon to the activist, because it can be taken as a sign of what the oppressor has oppressed and what she pretends to liberate.

But what about the Nazis? Was the resentment that drove the likes of Goebels, Goerring, Hitler simply a resentment of individualism, a desire to return to the unindividuated whole of the matriarchal tribe? I don't think so. These chaps imagined themselves as heroic warriors, as tragic figures in the classical sense. Their Olympic Stadium, recently host to Zidane's headbut and tragic fall from grace, is festooned with statuary not only in honour of the muscular bodies of German youth, but also as signs of these youth's future glory as heroic individuals upon the world stage. Hitler is willing to sacrifice millions of these boys in his war because he thinks only thus will their lives have meaning; meanwhile the sacrifice of millions of Jews will be hidden from view, soon to be forgotten in the new Germany.... (Boy, did he get that calculation wrong, for it is the sacrifice of the Jews that is symbolically all powerful today.)

What the Nazis resented was the decline of an aristocratic age and the rise of some anomic, market-driven individuality, as symbolized by "the Jew". The Nazi wishes a return to the time when valor and value (originally one and the same) are proven on the battlefield.

This all leads to the question: what is the true aristocratic spirit and the true democratic spirit? since we can assume that National Socialism is a corruption of both. The Gnostic "aristocrat", the would-be heroic individual, e.g. Hitler, is not what he wants to be because he is trapped forever in his resentments of "the Jew". His is an aristocracy that is enslaved to its resentment, such that every SS officer who comes out of the Gnostic initiation rituals at the castle, thinking he is a great and noble individual, is actually just a low down p.o.s. who doesn't understand the true aristocracy of human freedom, notwithstanding that he strike all the poses of an individual, of a noble German officer.

He does not understand that a true aristocrat does not rule his people (or enslave them to resentful causes) but rather represents his people, i.e. that the true aristocratic spirit is also a democratic spirit, and that ultimately an individual is nothing without a humility in belonging to other people as well as to God.

So I think it comes down to the Gnostic empire vs. the democratic nation: both have a place for individualism and for individual service to the greater whole. But only one gets it right.

dag said...

Peers, that is likely to make sense to one man in a thousand, if that many; and it is beautiful and astounding. I stand in awe, as so often, of your insights.

I'm going to press on above with individuation and later in the week with more on the gnostic paganism of the castle, as you point out.

Peers, that was lovely.

dag said...

I'm going to carry on with this essay above and will try to cover some of the points Truepeers raises and discusses.

This is a long-standing concern to many of us, and it requires some explanation till it comes out coherent to the general reader. I'll post on this over the next few days even though I would like very much to rage about the Muslims in Pakistan and Sryia and so on.

This subject is so far from my field that I have great qualms in writing about it; but given that no one else seems to be taking this line I feel free to do so to the best of my ability till another comes along to do better. We must know the reason we face the world as it is today, and that is due to the history of our intellectual traditions and practices. The piecemeal presentation of this thesis is confusing to even the most dedicated reader at times, but the short version is that we are witnessing here the history of the Left dhimmi fascism that we are today at war against. For those interested in the details so far regarding the gnostic paganism of the Nazis as above, please search this site for Sebottendorff, Liebenfels, Guido von List, Darre, and environmentalism, as examples.

Please feel free to comment at any post and I'll respond as I am able.

truepeers said...

Thanks Dag, but most of the insights are not originally mine. I simply try honestly to belong to those people who are committed to unfolding larger truths.