*
Non-Christian reactionary Rightists often seem to reject Christianity because they cannot find a
church which is both Western and agrees with their political programme -
for example they cannot find a sufficiently anti- uncontrolled-mass-immigration Christian
church.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/why-is-it-in-practice-impossible-to.html
*
My
attitude to this stuff, is that this is a pseudo-problem.
Any real religion rules-out something like 'open borders' mass immigration; simply because OBMI is a product of the insanity of forgetting God.
Any real religion rules-out something like 'open borders' mass immigration - not as a matter of explicit policy or planning; but much more importantly just because a policy of OBMI is only possible in an apostate society; which has, in consequence of its secularism, become psychotic.
Any real religion is intrinsically and in practice going to be anti-OBMI - no matter what they may say or think about the matter under current conditions.
*
There is nothing to debate about the lunacy and/or evil of modern political correctness (such as OBMI); it is not a subtle or difficult matter, it is as plain and obvious as anything political possibly could be.
And if someone cannot instantly-perceive that OBMI is insane and intrinsically-destructive, then it can only be because they themselves are either insane or destructively motivated (or both).
Modern religious people, including many or most real Christians, are also caught-up in this general insanity - they are seldom exempt unless they practice de facto isolation from the Mass Media which originates and enforced New Leftist political correctness.
In fact there is hardly a person alive who is untainted in some way; if not on one issue then another.
But trying to reason a madman out of his unreasoning madness is futile: we must first try to cure the insanity, then we will not need to reason with him.
*
(Our society is insane, by strict criteria - we are psychotic, thought-disordered, hallucinatory - perceiving things which aren't there, lacking in reality testing, delusionally-fixated upon falsehoods and un-persuadable in our adherence to error.)
*
The insanity of modernity is caused by forgetting God and hating God; we cannot cure it without God.
Religion is the first and only cure for the endemic insanity of modernity.
*
So,
we need to subordinate politics to religion.
We simply have to bring back God as our essential priority.
Any proper religion would work in this respect, but I mean
specifically real Christianity of any type or denomination; and after this, but only after, all the crazy and lethal self-inflicted pathologies of political correctness will swiftly evaporate.
*
Cure the insanity and its consequences will disappear.
But religion must come first. We cannot have the benefits of religion (such as sanity) without religion.
*
Friday, 31 January 2014
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Definitions of Neocamaralism, Neo-Reactionary, Game, Dark Enlightenment
*
1. Neocameralism: Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good. [TS Eliot].
2. Neo-Reactionary: Someone who wants to restore and freeze human society at the situation of some particularly-located and transitional decade from Western history - but minus the religion which created and sustained that society.
3. Game: The world view of a man who theoretically wants nothing more than that all women are subordinate to all men in all situations; but does not want this enough actually to join the billion-plus people who already live by that law.
4. Dark Enlightenment: An ideology that regards life as a pick-and-mix sweetshop; where you get to keep your favourite pleasures of modernity, but leave behind its lethal intrinsic problems.
*
1. Neocameralism: Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good. [TS Eliot].
2. Neo-Reactionary: Someone who wants to restore and freeze human society at the situation of some particularly-located and transitional decade from Western history - but minus the religion which created and sustained that society.
3. Game: The world view of a man who theoretically wants nothing more than that all women are subordinate to all men in all situations; but does not want this enough actually to join the billion-plus people who already live by that law.
4. Dark Enlightenment: An ideology that regards life as a pick-and-mix sweetshop; where you get to keep your favourite pleasures of modernity, but leave behind its lethal intrinsic problems.
*
A seminal 12,000 word essay on the modern condition from John C Wright
*
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/01/the-restless-heart-of-darkness-part-one/
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/01/restless-heart-of-darkness-part-two/
How good is this essay?
To say it is brilliant is to understate: this is High Journalism of permanent value. This is simultaneously enjoyable, accessible and profound. Think GK Chesterton, think George Orwell.
I could not exaggerate how good this essay is, because it is as-good as topical essays can be - it could be matched but not surpassed: it is work at the summit of its genre.
*
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/01/the-restless-heart-of-darkness-part-one/
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/01/restless-heart-of-darkness-part-two/
How good is this essay?
To say it is brilliant is to understate: this is High Journalism of permanent value. This is simultaneously enjoyable, accessible and profound. Think GK Chesterton, think George Orwell.
I could not exaggerate how good this essay is, because it is as-good as topical essays can be - it could be matched but not surpassed: it is work at the summit of its genre.
*
Steroids (glucocorticoids): the third most important, but least understood, major category of therapeutic drug
*
The most important drugs, the one you'd least like to be without, are the opiates - especially morphine; because they are the only effective treatment for extreme pain, and extreme pain is the worst thing.
The second most important drugs are the antibiotics.
*
But the third most important drugs are probably the 'steroids' - which mimic the action of the hormone cortisol (secreted by the outer part of the adrenal gland) specifically the type of steroids called glucocorticoids: prednisone, prednisilone, hydrocortisone, betamethasone, beclomethasone and many others.
The discovery of both antibiotics and steroids in the middle of the twentieth century represents the greatest breakthrough era in the history of medicine.
But, unlike antibiotics, steroids are not well known, and very poorly understood; in fact, (like opiates) they tend to be regarded as more of a problem than a benefit - we take for granted their wonderful life-saving and life-enhancing power, and focus almost exclusively on the problems of side effects.
*
(There are also other kinds of therapeutically-useful steroid drugs which mimic different natural hormones; for example mineralocorticoid steroids which mimic a hormone from the kidney, female sex steroids which mimic oestrogen or progesterone from the ovaries, and anabolic steroids which mimic testosterone from the testis.)
*
What do glucocorticoid steroids do?
In a sense, steroids do the opposite of antibiotics. Antibiotics enhance or assist the immune system by killing invading bacteria (or allowing the immune to kill invading bacteria); but steroids modify and suppress the immune system when it is attacking the body - instead of attacking invading micro-organisms.
And it turns out that a lot of symptoms and diseases are essentially, or mostly, a matter of the immune system attacking the body
*
Steroids mimic the effect of cortisol, which is secreted from the outer part of the adrenal gland. Cortisol is essential to life - if your adrenal glands were removed, you would certainly die, probably within a few weeks (unless you took replacement therapy); but what cortisol does is (unlike most of the other hormones) hard to describe - because conrtisol sustains pretty-much every cell in the body.
On the other hand, excess amounts of glucocorticoids causes 'Cushing's Syndrome' - moon face, muscle wasting and weakness, osteoporosis, thinning and damage to skin, psychiatric symptoms...
And sometimes these serious side effects are unavoidable in order to have a large enough and sustained enough level of steroid to treat severe diseases.
Steroids work slowly, compared with most drugs - usually building up over a few days, perhaps because they need to get into the cell nucleus and alter DNA transcription.
*
So what are steroids used for?
Well, they have saved many lives. Among people I know personally, two would have died of the auto-immune disease sarcoidosis, if it wasn't for steroids. Other automimmune dieases include rheumatoid arthritis, SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), systemic sclerosis and many with no names.
Steroids get used in all kinds of medical emergencies such a premature babies, or head injuries (with swelling of the brain), or as a palliation in terminal cancers.
Almost all of the effective and lifesaving types of chemotherapy - e.g. for leukaemia, includes steroids.Steroids are also used to prevent rejection in organ transplants.
Steroids are the mainstay of treatment of many skin diseases, including the commonest - eczema/ dermatitis; but also psoriasis.
Steroids (either inhaled or - in emergencies - by mouth) are the mainstay of treatment of asthma, and also severe hay fever type allergies.
Many many uses.
*
Let me close by my own recent personal experience of what steroids can do.
I have 'osteoarthritis' in my knees - which means that on X-ray there are bone deformities in the joints.
It turns-out I cannot tolerate the usual symptomatic treatment - which is Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory drugs such is diclofenac or ibuprofen - and anyway they were not terribly effective.
But a steroid injection into the joint produced a very substantial improvement - reduced swelling and redness, and a much more solid and stable joint - which lasted about three months.
*
What this tells us, indirectly, is that many medical problems are side effects of our own bodies responses to infection and injury - or due to errors in the immune system itself.
It turns out that the arthritis was not really the main problem with my knee - it was the body's inflammatory response to that arthritis which was causing pain, swelling, instability and at one point collapse of the joint. Dampen the inflammation, and 66 percent of the problem disappeared - although the arthritis was itself unchanged.
And, quite often it seems, the underlying pathology causing an disease is relatively trivial - it seems that most of the medical problem was the body's response to a trivial, maybe temporary, underlying cause.
*
One of the mysteries of steroids is that they are apparently temporary-acting drugs, yet so often have a permanent and curative effect.
Somebody has sarcoidosis, or temporal arteritis, or acute rheumatoid arthritis - and they would certainly die - but that high dose steroids stop them from dying (at the cost of severe Cushing's syndrome side effects).
Yet once the crisis is over and the situation is under control, the side effects of the steroids become the most pressing problem. So, as soon as maybe, after a while, the steroids are reduced and tapered-off - often to nothing.
Yet the disease does not come back.
*
At medical school we were told that steroids suppressed disease, but did not really cure it.
True enough in one sense - but in another sense, the temporary suppression is apparently enough to allow the body to cure the disease.
So indirectly, steroids are indeed potentially curative.
At any rate, overall, I believe that the cortisol-mimicking, glucocorticoid steroids are worthy of the third place in a pantheon of all-time most-useful drugs.
*
NOTE: My doctoral thesis (Neuroendocrine correlates of depression - awarded in 1988) was substantially about cortisol and its hormonal control. I then studied the microanatomy of the adrenal cortex, specifically the neural control of cortisol secretion, for a further three years.)
The most important drugs, the one you'd least like to be without, are the opiates - especially morphine; because they are the only effective treatment for extreme pain, and extreme pain is the worst thing.
The second most important drugs are the antibiotics.
*
But the third most important drugs are probably the 'steroids' - which mimic the action of the hormone cortisol (secreted by the outer part of the adrenal gland) specifically the type of steroids called glucocorticoids: prednisone, prednisilone, hydrocortisone, betamethasone, beclomethasone and many others.
The discovery of both antibiotics and steroids in the middle of the twentieth century represents the greatest breakthrough era in the history of medicine.
But, unlike antibiotics, steroids are not well known, and very poorly understood; in fact, (like opiates) they tend to be regarded as more of a problem than a benefit - we take for granted their wonderful life-saving and life-enhancing power, and focus almost exclusively on the problems of side effects.
*
(There are also other kinds of therapeutically-useful steroid drugs which mimic different natural hormones; for example mineralocorticoid steroids which mimic a hormone from the kidney, female sex steroids which mimic oestrogen or progesterone from the ovaries, and anabolic steroids which mimic testosterone from the testis.)
*
What do glucocorticoid steroids do?
In a sense, steroids do the opposite of antibiotics. Antibiotics enhance or assist the immune system by killing invading bacteria (or allowing the immune to kill invading bacteria); but steroids modify and suppress the immune system when it is attacking the body - instead of attacking invading micro-organisms.
And it turns out that a lot of symptoms and diseases are essentially, or mostly, a matter of the immune system attacking the body
*
Steroids mimic the effect of cortisol, which is secreted from the outer part of the adrenal gland. Cortisol is essential to life - if your adrenal glands were removed, you would certainly die, probably within a few weeks (unless you took replacement therapy); but what cortisol does is (unlike most of the other hormones) hard to describe - because conrtisol sustains pretty-much every cell in the body.
On the other hand, excess amounts of glucocorticoids causes 'Cushing's Syndrome' - moon face, muscle wasting and weakness, osteoporosis, thinning and damage to skin, psychiatric symptoms...
And sometimes these serious side effects are unavoidable in order to have a large enough and sustained enough level of steroid to treat severe diseases.
Steroids work slowly, compared with most drugs - usually building up over a few days, perhaps because they need to get into the cell nucleus and alter DNA transcription.
*
So what are steroids used for?
Well, they have saved many lives. Among people I know personally, two would have died of the auto-immune disease sarcoidosis, if it wasn't for steroids. Other automimmune dieases include rheumatoid arthritis, SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), systemic sclerosis and many with no names.
Steroids get used in all kinds of medical emergencies such a premature babies, or head injuries (with swelling of the brain), or as a palliation in terminal cancers.
Almost all of the effective and lifesaving types of chemotherapy - e.g. for leukaemia, includes steroids.Steroids are also used to prevent rejection in organ transplants.
Steroids are the mainstay of treatment of many skin diseases, including the commonest - eczema/ dermatitis; but also psoriasis.
Steroids (either inhaled or - in emergencies - by mouth) are the mainstay of treatment of asthma, and also severe hay fever type allergies.
Many many uses.
*
Let me close by my own recent personal experience of what steroids can do.
I have 'osteoarthritis' in my knees - which means that on X-ray there are bone deformities in the joints.
It turns-out I cannot tolerate the usual symptomatic treatment - which is Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory drugs such is diclofenac or ibuprofen - and anyway they were not terribly effective.
But a steroid injection into the joint produced a very substantial improvement - reduced swelling and redness, and a much more solid and stable joint - which lasted about three months.
*
What this tells us, indirectly, is that many medical problems are side effects of our own bodies responses to infection and injury - or due to errors in the immune system itself.
It turns out that the arthritis was not really the main problem with my knee - it was the body's inflammatory response to that arthritis which was causing pain, swelling, instability and at one point collapse of the joint. Dampen the inflammation, and 66 percent of the problem disappeared - although the arthritis was itself unchanged.
And, quite often it seems, the underlying pathology causing an disease is relatively trivial - it seems that most of the medical problem was the body's response to a trivial, maybe temporary, underlying cause.
*
One of the mysteries of steroids is that they are apparently temporary-acting drugs, yet so often have a permanent and curative effect.
Somebody has sarcoidosis, or temporal arteritis, or acute rheumatoid arthritis - and they would certainly die - but that high dose steroids stop them from dying (at the cost of severe Cushing's syndrome side effects).
Yet once the crisis is over and the situation is under control, the side effects of the steroids become the most pressing problem. So, as soon as maybe, after a while, the steroids are reduced and tapered-off - often to nothing.
Yet the disease does not come back.
*
At medical school we were told that steroids suppressed disease, but did not really cure it.
True enough in one sense - but in another sense, the temporary suppression is apparently enough to allow the body to cure the disease.
So indirectly, steroids are indeed potentially curative.
At any rate, overall, I believe that the cortisol-mimicking, glucocorticoid steroids are worthy of the third place in a pantheon of all-time most-useful drugs.
*
NOTE: My doctoral thesis (Neuroendocrine correlates of depression - awarded in 1988) was substantially about cortisol and its hormonal control. I then studied the microanatomy of the adrenal cortex, specifically the neural control of cortisol secretion, for a further three years.)
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
My very first exposure to Tolkien
*
...was aged about ten or eleven, when a friend played me a few minutes on a cassette tape from what he called 'a fairy tale for grown-ups' called The Hobbit.
It was from the (apparently?) long-lost 1961 BBC Radio adaptation read by David Davis - who was one of the best and favourite performers on children's radio during my childhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davis_(broadcaster)
Here is a snippet of his voice - although when I knew him it had matured to be a little deeper and more 'gravelly' than here:
http://www.radioacademy.org/hall-of-fame-member/david-davis/
I was intrigued - but did not get around to reading The Hobbit for myself until I was 13, under the influence of another friend who perhaps lent me a copy.
I loved it so much that I did not want to read The Lord of the Rings because I knew that it did not have very much more about Bilbo - I just wanted another book all about Bilbo.
Still, eventually (i.e. after a few weeks resistance) I read LotR; and the rest is history...
*
...was aged about ten or eleven, when a friend played me a few minutes on a cassette tape from what he called 'a fairy tale for grown-ups' called The Hobbit.
It was from the (apparently?) long-lost 1961 BBC Radio adaptation read by David Davis - who was one of the best and favourite performers on children's radio during my childhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davis_(broadcaster)
Here is a snippet of his voice - although when I knew him it had matured to be a little deeper and more 'gravelly' than here:
http://www.radioacademy.org/hall-of-fame-member/david-davis/
I was intrigued - but did not get around to reading The Hobbit for myself until I was 13, under the influence of another friend who perhaps lent me a copy.
I loved it so much that I did not want to read The Lord of the Rings because I knew that it did not have very much more about Bilbo - I just wanted another book all about Bilbo.
Still, eventually (i.e. after a few weeks resistance) I read LotR; and the rest is history...
*
Did the abstraction of representation of the Holy Trinity cause (partly) the decline of Christianity
*
For Christianity (but not for other religions, or not necessarily) it seems that there may be a need for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be understood, depicted, discussed mostly in a concrete, personalized and simple fashion.
There are have been, at times, personalized depictions of God the Father - as an old man with a beard, most often (I think) but my impression is that since the mid-19th century this have dwindled and disappeared.
At the same time, the understanding and belief in God the Father has dwindled.
*
The Holy Ghost was seldom (I think) depicted as a man (but maybe as a dove) - however, His name has been changed from Ghost to Spirit - which is again a reduction in concreteness.
It is easy enough to believe in the reality of a ghost - but a spirit is imprecise and too vague to inspire love and worship.
*
The exception is Jesus Christ - who has continued to be depicted as a man - concretely (indeed, often enough depicted as only a man) - consequently (it seems to me) the strongest spirituality in the modern world relates very specifically to Jesus Christ and is hardly able even to discuss the Father or the Holy Ghost - and such discussions have a hollow and unconvincing ring to them - don't you think?
It seems only Jesus is really real to the modern Christian.
This is the secret of the relative success of evangelical denominations - the concrete reality of Jesus and therefore of a Jesus-focused Christianity; but focused almost exclusively and therefore - in practice - incomplete.
*
And for Catholics there is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Much of her special power (in the Catholic denominations) comes (I believe) from the fact that she can be readily and un-forcedly understood and pictured and depicted as a sanctified human.
*
My point is that humans are as they are - which is focused on other humans at a very deep psychological level; on personal relationships; and this means that abstractions are not really-real to us (or, only to a very few) - and when the abstractions refer to God, and concrete representations are regarded as either wicked or dumb, then God becomes unreal - necessarily so.
*
Humans simply cannot, as a general rule, regard abstractions as real; cannot believe in abstractions - and, when we try to, we become confused and weakened by abstractions.
**
NOTE ADDED: In relation to abstraction and God, the disagreement between Christians - a 'disagreement' which amounts to a total inversion of assumptions hence perspective - is between those who regard God as too important to be abstract, and those who regard God as too important to be concrete.
For Christianity (but not for other religions, or not necessarily) it seems that there may be a need for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be understood, depicted, discussed mostly in a concrete, personalized and simple fashion.
There are have been, at times, personalized depictions of God the Father - as an old man with a beard, most often (I think) but my impression is that since the mid-19th century this have dwindled and disappeared.
At the same time, the understanding and belief in God the Father has dwindled.
*
The Holy Ghost was seldom (I think) depicted as a man (but maybe as a dove) - however, His name has been changed from Ghost to Spirit - which is again a reduction in concreteness.
It is easy enough to believe in the reality of a ghost - but a spirit is imprecise and too vague to inspire love and worship.
*
The exception is Jesus Christ - who has continued to be depicted as a man - concretely (indeed, often enough depicted as only a man) - consequently (it seems to me) the strongest spirituality in the modern world relates very specifically to Jesus Christ and is hardly able even to discuss the Father or the Holy Ghost - and such discussions have a hollow and unconvincing ring to them - don't you think?
It seems only Jesus is really real to the modern Christian.
This is the secret of the relative success of evangelical denominations - the concrete reality of Jesus and therefore of a Jesus-focused Christianity; but focused almost exclusively and therefore - in practice - incomplete.
*
And for Catholics there is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Much of her special power (in the Catholic denominations) comes (I believe) from the fact that she can be readily and un-forcedly understood and pictured and depicted as a sanctified human.
*
My point is that humans are as they are - which is focused on other humans at a very deep psychological level; on personal relationships; and this means that abstractions are not really-real to us (or, only to a very few) - and when the abstractions refer to God, and concrete representations are regarded as either wicked or dumb, then God becomes unreal - necessarily so.
*
Humans simply cannot, as a general rule, regard abstractions as real; cannot believe in abstractions - and, when we try to, we become confused and weakened by abstractions.
**
NOTE ADDED: In relation to abstraction and God, the disagreement between Christians - a 'disagreement' which amounts to a total inversion of assumptions hence perspective - is between those who regard God as too important to be abstract, and those who regard God as too important to be concrete.
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
Don't Forget to Write: Favourite TV Programme ever...
*
I had a very interesting experience over the Christmas period relating to what has been - for more than 35 years - officially My Favourite TV Programme Ever.
This was a BBC comedy drama called Don't Forget to Write, broadcast in two series of six episodes in 1977 and 1979 - written by Charles Wood, starring George Cole (as Gordon Maple) and Gwen Watford as his wife.
It was never repeated, and has never been available in any format such as video or DVD - so the only thing I had to go on were my memories of the one-off experience. The series was (as can be inferred) not very successful or popular, and I can pretty much guarantee that nobody reading this has watched all twelve episodes as I did.
*
On that basis and memory, I absolutely loved Don't Forget to Write - for years and years it was a depiction of an ideal dream of how I would like to live.
It had a writer who initially lived in or near Bristol (as I did - although in the second series they moved to a rambling country house), with an attractive and devoted wife, two kids (boy and girl) - and with his best friend (and his family) living within easy walking distance.
What happened was based around the trials and tribulations of being a writer, the financial uncertainties and writing blocks, the writing aids and triumphs, and the petty ambitions and jealousies of having a more successful best friend who was also a writer. There was the cosiness of the family, and an underlying love and dedication; there was also the glamour and status of having an agent, plays put on, reading about yourself in the newspapers, writing movie scripts and attending the shooting...
As a package, for me, for most of my life - this was an ideal thing.
*
Imagine my excitement when I discovered about three months ago that, for some incomprehensible reason, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had released both series of Don't Forget to Write on DVD! At last I could see it again!
My brother imported it and gave it to me for Christmas - and on Christmas day and over the period before New Year I watched all twelve, hour long episodes...
*
To say that I was disappointed does not begin to describe the strange, complex feelings which re-watching DFTW brought to me - I have been brooding on it for the past few weeks.
It was not so much that DFTW was bad - although a couple of the episodes were almost unwatchably bad; and one of them deliberately so, since (presumably as a joke/ discipline) ALL the dialogue (for an hour length drama) consisted of questions; while another episode featured a telephone ringing loudly in the background for long periods - but I brooded about the revelation concerning my former self.
The ideal DFTW that I had enjoyed and recalled in the manner described above, did have some very slender basis in fact - but the overwhelming tone was shallow, spiteful, seedy, accepting of sexual corruption and gross dishonesty, full of horrible characters, gratuitous nastiness and hatreds... in sum it looks very much as if the young me was idealizing the selfish shenanigans of a bunch of smug, spoilt pseuds...
*
So far I have concluded that:
1. My tastes have changed
2. Being a Christian makes a big difference to 'artistic' evaluations.
3. What somebody gets from a work of art may be very different from that which is most obvious in a work of art.
4. The bad, evil aspects of a work of art (the casual acceptance of marital infidelity and promiscuity, for example) can nonetheless be corrupting; by normalizing evil and making it an accepted background to life, such that even when it is not indulged in, it is not effectively resisted.
5. Yet good can come from evil - on the basis that the idyll I manufactured from DFTW does, in many aspects, closely resemble the best and happiest aspects of my own life - and perhaps subliminally guided me toward this life.
It seems that I actually became (pretty much, in the essentials) the 'good' Gordon Maple of my own idealized recollections - but living in the city of my childhood imaginings (ie Newcastle) rather than the city of my actual childhood (Bristol).
*
I had a very interesting experience over the Christmas period relating to what has been - for more than 35 years - officially My Favourite TV Programme Ever.
This was a BBC comedy drama called Don't Forget to Write, broadcast in two series of six episodes in 1977 and 1979 - written by Charles Wood, starring George Cole (as Gordon Maple) and Gwen Watford as his wife.
It was never repeated, and has never been available in any format such as video or DVD - so the only thing I had to go on were my memories of the one-off experience. The series was (as can be inferred) not very successful or popular, and I can pretty much guarantee that nobody reading this has watched all twelve episodes as I did.
*
On that basis and memory, I absolutely loved Don't Forget to Write - for years and years it was a depiction of an ideal dream of how I would like to live.
It had a writer who initially lived in or near Bristol (as I did - although in the second series they moved to a rambling country house), with an attractive and devoted wife, two kids (boy and girl) - and with his best friend (and his family) living within easy walking distance.
What happened was based around the trials and tribulations of being a writer, the financial uncertainties and writing blocks, the writing aids and triumphs, and the petty ambitions and jealousies of having a more successful best friend who was also a writer. There was the cosiness of the family, and an underlying love and dedication; there was also the glamour and status of having an agent, plays put on, reading about yourself in the newspapers, writing movie scripts and attending the shooting...
As a package, for me, for most of my life - this was an ideal thing.
*
Imagine my excitement when I discovered about three months ago that, for some incomprehensible reason, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had released both series of Don't Forget to Write on DVD! At last I could see it again!
My brother imported it and gave it to me for Christmas - and on Christmas day and over the period before New Year I watched all twelve, hour long episodes...
*
To say that I was disappointed does not begin to describe the strange, complex feelings which re-watching DFTW brought to me - I have been brooding on it for the past few weeks.
It was not so much that DFTW was bad - although a couple of the episodes were almost unwatchably bad; and one of them deliberately so, since (presumably as a joke/ discipline) ALL the dialogue (for an hour length drama) consisted of questions; while another episode featured a telephone ringing loudly in the background for long periods - but I brooded about the revelation concerning my former self.
The ideal DFTW that I had enjoyed and recalled in the manner described above, did have some very slender basis in fact - but the overwhelming tone was shallow, spiteful, seedy, accepting of sexual corruption and gross dishonesty, full of horrible characters, gratuitous nastiness and hatreds... in sum it looks very much as if the young me was idealizing the selfish shenanigans of a bunch of smug, spoilt pseuds...
*
So far I have concluded that:
1. My tastes have changed
2. Being a Christian makes a big difference to 'artistic' evaluations.
3. What somebody gets from a work of art may be very different from that which is most obvious in a work of art.
4. The bad, evil aspects of a work of art (the casual acceptance of marital infidelity and promiscuity, for example) can nonetheless be corrupting; by normalizing evil and making it an accepted background to life, such that even when it is not indulged in, it is not effectively resisted.
5. Yet good can come from evil - on the basis that the idyll I manufactured from DFTW does, in many aspects, closely resemble the best and happiest aspects of my own life - and perhaps subliminally guided me toward this life.
It seems that I actually became (pretty much, in the essentials) the 'good' Gordon Maple of my own idealized recollections - but living in the city of my childhood imaginings (ie Newcastle) rather than the city of my actual childhood (Bristol).
*
Monday, 27 January 2014
Leftists typically deny that Religion is a powerful motivator of human behaviour
*
The Left (which is intrinsically secular) always explains-away religious commitment and even martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness.
*
So - for example - highly devout behaviour (e.g. people voluntarily giving large chunks of their time, effort and money to church projects) is explained in terms of them 'buying' various social support and benefits, and enjoying solidarity.
Or else it is explained in terms of brain-washing (from childhood). Or maybe in terms of religions terrorizing people by anything from fear of violence and murder; to fear of adverse gossip, shunning, expulsion.
In the event of religious aggression or war, the cause is not ascribed to the religion - but to something else such as oppression, exploitation, inequality, poverty, nationalism, economic self-interest, class conflicts, appropriation of resources... anything-but religion or religious difference.
Likewise martyrdom (voluntary self sacrifice for the faith) is explained in terms of the martyr either gaining tangible benefits such as status, power or money for relatives or the community (or penalties on these people for failing to martyr oneself); or more often in terms of mental deficiency such as being too dumb to recognize their own manipulation, or a frenzied and unrealistic enthusiasm or delirium (like a berserker rage or a violent drunk) or delusional 'fanaticism' where a psychiatrically sick person is operating on the basis of a pathological state such as delusions or hallucinations.
*
Some such non-religious reason is always ascribed for highly-motivated behaviour in the name of religion; because secular people simply cannot believe that actual religion is a real, powerful motivation - simply because they themselves do not share it.
For modern secular people, religions are merely a mixture of wishful-thinking fantasy, social solidarities and manipulations, and rationalized hatred; hence religion is just not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment - and any evidence of apparent commitment therefore must really be due to... something else.
*
Yet religion is, in fact - and very obviously, potentially the most powerful of all human motivations.
And insofar as a society lacks religion - to that extent the society is demotivated.
*
The Left (which is intrinsically secular) always explains-away religious commitment and even martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness.
*
So - for example - highly devout behaviour (e.g. people voluntarily giving large chunks of their time, effort and money to church projects) is explained in terms of them 'buying' various social support and benefits, and enjoying solidarity.
Or else it is explained in terms of brain-washing (from childhood). Or maybe in terms of religions terrorizing people by anything from fear of violence and murder; to fear of adverse gossip, shunning, expulsion.
In the event of religious aggression or war, the cause is not ascribed to the religion - but to something else such as oppression, exploitation, inequality, poverty, nationalism, economic self-interest, class conflicts, appropriation of resources... anything-but religion or religious difference.
Likewise martyrdom (voluntary self sacrifice for the faith) is explained in terms of the martyr either gaining tangible benefits such as status, power or money for relatives or the community (or penalties on these people for failing to martyr oneself); or more often in terms of mental deficiency such as being too dumb to recognize their own manipulation, or a frenzied and unrealistic enthusiasm or delirium (like a berserker rage or a violent drunk) or delusional 'fanaticism' where a psychiatrically sick person is operating on the basis of a pathological state such as delusions or hallucinations.
*
Some such non-religious reason is always ascribed for highly-motivated behaviour in the name of religion; because secular people simply cannot believe that actual religion is a real, powerful motivation - simply because they themselves do not share it.
For modern secular people, religions are merely a mixture of wishful-thinking fantasy, social solidarities and manipulations, and rationalized hatred; hence religion is just not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment - and any evidence of apparent commitment therefore must really be due to... something else.
*
Yet religion is, in fact - and very obviously, potentially the most powerful of all human motivations.
And insofar as a society lacks religion - to that extent the society is demotivated.
*
The necessity of believing in Free Will
*
It is a striking aspect of modern life that so many people - brain scientists, psychologists, social scientists, geneticists, metaphysicians, artists, journalists, politicians - are all trying so hard to persuade other people that there is no free will
...that people cannot control the way they behave and what they do: that people are in fact (and whatever they may feel about it) helpless puppets of their lower brain, subconscious mind, conditioning, upbringing, social circumstances, genes, instinct, class, sex, age, race, philosophical necessity, or propaganda.
*
Just imagine! We apparently 'know' for sure that we are either helpless puppets of all these, at the same time (and others I haven't mentioned), or else whichever one of them happens to interest us (or pay our wages).
Or maybe all of them and one or more of them at the same time - or something...
*
...We apparently know this for a fact - or many facts - or one fact and many facts at the same time; despite that it may be the deepest experiential conviction (deeper than belief in religion, science, art, politics or anything else) that we are autonomous agents; and despite that to assert anything else is very obviously self-refuting.
*
Presumably the hordes of people in scores of professions who are so keen to assert that we all lack free will (and who spread their confusion/ despair-generating views by all possible channels in the research literature, educational establishments and mass media) are likewise merely helpless puppets that cannot stop themselves from spouting evil nonsense.
*
It is a striking aspect of modern life that so many people - brain scientists, psychologists, social scientists, geneticists, metaphysicians, artists, journalists, politicians - are all trying so hard to persuade other people that there is no free will
...that people cannot control the way they behave and what they do: that people are in fact (and whatever they may feel about it) helpless puppets of their lower brain, subconscious mind, conditioning, upbringing, social circumstances, genes, instinct, class, sex, age, race, philosophical necessity, or propaganda.
*
Just imagine! We apparently 'know' for sure that we are either helpless puppets of all these, at the same time (and others I haven't mentioned), or else whichever one of them happens to interest us (or pay our wages).
Or maybe all of them and one or more of them at the same time - or something...
*
...We apparently know this for a fact - or many facts - or one fact and many facts at the same time; despite that it may be the deepest experiential conviction (deeper than belief in religion, science, art, politics or anything else) that we are autonomous agents; and despite that to assert anything else is very obviously self-refuting.
*
Presumably the hordes of people in scores of professions who are so keen to assert that we all lack free will (and who spread their confusion/ despair-generating views by all possible channels in the research literature, educational establishments and mass media) are likewise merely helpless puppets that cannot stop themselves from spouting evil nonsense.
*
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Mormonism and the old Christian problems of what happens to unbaptized children and virtuous pagans
*
From very early in the history of Christianity and right through the middle ages, two of the biggest problems for loving Christians were:
1. What happens to unbaptized children? Do they go to Hell?
and
2. What happened to the pagans who lived before Christ - do they necessarily go to Hell?
*
Both of these are linked, and both were a problem because it was assumed that there was no possibility of salvation outwith the sacraments administered by the church, and no possibility of salvation without knowledge of Christ.
This inference has always been resisted by many Christians, since it would imply that God was more cruel, less merciful than ordinary human beings.
But the reason we know about all this, is that the problem was felt particularly acutely among Christian intellectuals who greatly valued - indeed venerated - the Classical learning of the ancient Greeks and pre-Christian Romans - especially the Emperor Trajan who was variously asserted to be in Heaven.
*
It seems evident that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith also felt these problems acutely, and (by his revelations and by logic) inferred that the problem was an artificial one produced by:
1. The false understanding of original sin.
2. The false assertion that there was no salvation outwith the church (specifics depending upon which particular denomination was doing the asserting).
3. A false understanding of the role of sacraments such as baptism and holy communion.
*
The different take of Mormonism can be seen from two striking passages in the Book of Mormon (taken from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng ).
Alma 39:
15 And now, my son, I would say somewhat unto you concerning the acoming of Christ. Behold, I say unto you, that it is he that surely shall come to take away the sins of the world; yea, he cometh to declare glad tidings of salvation unto his people.
This passage is a key one in understanding the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism. The idea that it was as easy for people before the coming of Christ to attain salvation as for people after the coming of Christ.
That pre-Christians knew enough for salvation; and that therefore (from the perspective of salvation) the problem of the virtuous pagan disappears.
(This is assuming that there is no such thing as original sin as conceptualized by the medieval church - for which see below.)
*
This becomes more apparent in what seems to be the most vehemently argued of any section of the Book of Mormon - Chapter 8 of the Book of Moroni:
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should adisputations rise among you.
From very early in the history of Christianity and right through the middle ages, two of the biggest problems for loving Christians were:
1. What happens to unbaptized children? Do they go to Hell?
and
2. What happened to the pagans who lived before Christ - do they necessarily go to Hell?
*
Both of these are linked, and both were a problem because it was assumed that there was no possibility of salvation outwith the sacraments administered by the church, and no possibility of salvation without knowledge of Christ.
This inference has always been resisted by many Christians, since it would imply that God was more cruel, less merciful than ordinary human beings.
But the reason we know about all this, is that the problem was felt particularly acutely among Christian intellectuals who greatly valued - indeed venerated - the Classical learning of the ancient Greeks and pre-Christian Romans - especially the Emperor Trajan who was variously asserted to be in Heaven.
*
It seems evident that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith also felt these problems acutely, and (by his revelations and by logic) inferred that the problem was an artificial one produced by:
1. The false understanding of original sin.
2. The false assertion that there was no salvation outwith the church (specifics depending upon which particular denomination was doing the asserting).
3. A false understanding of the role of sacraments such as baptism and holy communion.
*
The different take of Mormonism can be seen from two striking passages in the Book of Mormon (taken from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng ).
Alma 39:
15 And now, my son, I would say somewhat unto you concerning the acoming of Christ. Behold, I say unto you, that it is he that surely shall come to take away the sins of the world; yea, he cometh to declare glad tidings of salvation unto his people.
16 And
now, my son, this was the ministry unto which ye were called, to
declare these glad tidings unto this people, to prepare their minds; or
rather that salvation might come unto them, that they may prepare the
minds of their achildren to hear the word at the time of his coming.
17 And
now I will ease your mind somewhat on this subject. Behold, you marvel
why these things should be known so long beforehand. Behold, I say unto
you, is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be
at the time of his coming?
18 Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be amade known unto this people as well as unto their children?
19 Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to asend his angel to declare these glad tidings unto us as unto our children, or as after the time of his coming?
This passage is a key one in understanding the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism. The idea that it was as easy for people before the coming of Christ to attain salvation as for people after the coming of Christ.
That pre-Christians knew enough for salvation; and that therefore (from the perspective of salvation) the problem of the virtuous pagan disappears.
(This is assuming that there is no such thing as original sin as conceptualized by the medieval church - for which see below.)
*
This becomes more apparent in what seems to be the most vehemently argued of any section of the Book of Mormon - Chapter 8 of the Book of Moroni:
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should adisputations rise among you.
5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
6 And
now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross
error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have
written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the aword of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:
8 aListen
to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I
came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to
repentance; the bwhole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little cchildren are dwhole, for they are not capable of committing esin; wherefore the curse of fAdam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of gcircumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn amockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are aaccountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little bchildren, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little achildren need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the bremission of sins.
12 But little achildren are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a brespecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold
I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need
baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for
he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For
awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of
baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo
be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner,
for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with
boldness, having aauthority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for bperfect clove dcasteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with acharity,
which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me;
wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all
alike and bpartakers of salvation.
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is aunchangeable from ball eternity to all eternity.
19 Little achildren
cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure
mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his bmercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the aatonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, ahell, and an bendless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the cjudgment-seat of Christ.
22 For behold that all little children are aalive in Christ, and also all they that are without the blaw. For the power of credemption cometh on all them that have dno law;
wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no
condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in adead works.
*
For Mormons, the powerful moral intuition that it would be a vile injustice for young children to be condemned to eternal Hell because they were not baptized is, in effect, taken as a reductio ad absurdum of traditional Christian theology - especially the most prevalent 'mainstream' understanding of original sin, which was/is that OS implies a default destiny of Hell for all humans.
*
So what happens to the theological status of the sacraments? As so often in Mormon theology, qualitative distinctions are made quantitative - and matters of salvation become matters of theosis/ sanctification or spiritual progression.
For Mormons, baptism is not a matter of salvation; rather it is a necessary step in spiritual progression, and a matter of the provision of objective, supernatural help and assistance in progression.
Likewise the sacrament of the Eucharist/ Holy Communion/ Lord's Supper is transformed into an objectively-valuable and supernaturally-administered help and assistance in the main business of life: which is resisting corruption and moving closer to God.
*
Is it correct to state that Neo-Reactionaries of the 'Dark Enlightenment' are 'Neo-fascists'?
*
The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.
In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.
*
Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.
The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.
*
I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.
(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.)
If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog.
Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.
*
The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.
This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.
But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.
(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)
*
The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.
But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)
Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).
*
On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.
Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.
*
(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)
*
(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)
*
Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:
1. A secular Right wing movement
2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left
...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.
Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are
3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.
*
So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.
Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.
(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).
The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).
This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.
*
(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)
*
A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.
I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.
Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.
If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.
To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).
But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.
**
I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness
I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
(...)
*
This list suggests that secular modern politics boils down either to political correctness or what could be (and almost certainly would be) termed a kind of ‘fascism’.
Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?
*
The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.
The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.
(...)
*
The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.
In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.
*
Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.
The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.
*
I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.
(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.)
If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog.
Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.
*
The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.
This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.
But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.
(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)
*
The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.
But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)
Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).
*
On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.
Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.
*
(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)
*
(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)
*
Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:
1. A secular Right wing movement
2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left
...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.
Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are
3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.
*
So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.
Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.
(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).
The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).
This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.
*
(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)
*
A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.
I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.
Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.
If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.
To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).
But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.
**
I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness
I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
(...)
Could a party of ‘common sense’ replace political correctness?
With
the profound weakness of mainstream Christianity in the West (due to
subversion by Leftism and subordination to PC), and with the weakness of
old-style nationalism (led by the lower levels of the upper class –
teachers, minor civil servants and journalists - who are now the most
zealous of the politically correct), and with the unlikeliness of a new
nationalism of the tradesman/ NCO class – then the most likely
opposition to political correctness (especially in the USA) currently
comes from populist, reactionary, secular groups based on common sense.
From
a Christian perspective, such groupings are seriously sub-optimal - at
best a temporary expedient. Nonetheless, supposing that common sense
secularism was actually to become powerful - what then? Could it, would
it provide a better alternative future than PC? What would that future
be?
This can be predicted by considering the probable characteristics of such a grouping - and weighing-up the pros and cons.
*
Since
so much of Western society is now corrupted by Liberalism and
implicated in PC, such a group would have to come from outside this -
and in rejecting the psychotic delusionality of PC it would need to
offer a common sense alternative which would be obvious to plain,
middling, productive people outwith the intelligentsia and their
underclass of state-dependents.
And since a common sense party would be reactive against PC, we can infer its main features.
*
Here
is a non-exhaustive list (in no particular order) of characteristics of
a possible Common Sense (CS) party contrasted with the politically
correct (PC) party.
CS v PC:
1. Natural and spontaneous versus Human designed
2. Reality is real and fixed versus Reality is relative and plastic
3. Coercive force versus Propaganda
4. Face to face versus Mass media
5. Concrete versus Abstract
6. Immediate versus Utopian
7. Instinctive versus Educated
8. Native versus Immigrant
9. Popular culture versus High art
10. Practical versus Theoretical
11. Invention versus Science
12. White versus Non-white
13. Heredity versus Culture
14. Apprenticeship versus Formal education
15. Men versus Women
16. Recognition versus Certification
17. Selfish versus Altruistic
18. Personal authority versus Bureaucratic procedure
19. Heterosexual versus Homosexual
20. Heart versus Head
21. Gut versus Intellect
22. National versus International
23. Tribal versus Outcast
24. Family versus Universalist
25. Real versus Ideal
26. Morality versus Law
27. Natural law versus Moral inversion
28. Courage versus Tolerance
29. Loyalty versus Subversion
30. Useful versus Useless
31. Duty versus Self-development
32. Productive versus Ideologically-sound
33. Money-grubbing versus Parasitic
34. Responsibilities versus Rights
35. Charity versus Needs
36. Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism
*
This list suggests that secular modern politics boils down either to political correctness or what could be (and almost certainly would be) termed a kind of ‘fascism’.
In other words fascism is approximately what you get when political correctness is opposed with common sense.
Of course, the Left has been calling the Right fascist since the mid-1960s: I am suggesting that in doing this the Left are broadly correct.
However, there are two important qualifications 1. that the fascist label properly applies only to the secular Right – not the religious Right; and 2. fascism is not synonymous with the Nazis - who were substantially a socialist and Leftist party, as the name of National Socialism implies.Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?
*
The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.
The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.
(...)
*
Saturday, 25 January 2014
But what do YOU want?
*
Upon this question, in various forms, hinges the plots of countless novels, TV soaps and movies.
First two thirds is about the individual struggling under the oppressive weight of expectations and rules imposed by their background, society, church, boss, parents, spouse or even children - then comes the decisive moment in which the protagonist asks themselves or gets asked "but what do you want?"...
And then the dawning realization of failure to live-up to the highest modern morality: self-fulfilment, self-expression (self-ishness)... after which the protagonist breaks free of their background, parents or family - and is met by the intoxicating joy of... whatever.
*
As Saul Bellow used to argue (and he would know; being a prime example of it), the masses are 'The Romantics' now - and attitude which used to be expressed by a handful of Dichter und Denker (poets and thinkers) is now mainstream: the individual sees himself (more often herself) as standing against everybody and everything else; and as in the Economy chapter of Thoreau's Walden, the prime question of life becomes how to get the most from the world in return for the least amount of effort.
*
At an instinctive level, most people recognize that this perspective is evil, but in a secular society there is no compelling reason not to reject demands and duties when they become aversive and if you can get away with it.
(After all, you only live once, you have a duty to make the most of your time, everyone is doing it, in fact it is our duty to fight oppression - so divorce is an act of heroic rebellion...)
*
Why not? If it something make me feel happier - if it is what I want; then why not do it?
The only true answer, the only compelling answer, requires a religious understanding of human life, and of the life of humans.
Lacking that, we will get what we are getting.
*
Upon this question, in various forms, hinges the plots of countless novels, TV soaps and movies.
First two thirds is about the individual struggling under the oppressive weight of expectations and rules imposed by their background, society, church, boss, parents, spouse or even children - then comes the decisive moment in which the protagonist asks themselves or gets asked "but what do you want?"...
And then the dawning realization of failure to live-up to the highest modern morality: self-fulfilment, self-expression (self-ishness)... after which the protagonist breaks free of their background, parents or family - and is met by the intoxicating joy of... whatever.
*
As Saul Bellow used to argue (and he would know; being a prime example of it), the masses are 'The Romantics' now - and attitude which used to be expressed by a handful of Dichter und Denker (poets and thinkers) is now mainstream: the individual sees himself (more often herself) as standing against everybody and everything else; and as in the Economy chapter of Thoreau's Walden, the prime question of life becomes how to get the most from the world in return for the least amount of effort.
*
At an instinctive level, most people recognize that this perspective is evil, but in a secular society there is no compelling reason not to reject demands and duties when they become aversive and if you can get away with it.
(After all, you only live once, you have a duty to make the most of your time, everyone is doing it, in fact it is our duty to fight oppression - so divorce is an act of heroic rebellion...)
*
Why not? If it something make me feel happier - if it is what I want; then why not do it?
The only true answer, the only compelling answer, requires a religious understanding of human life, and of the life of humans.
Lacking that, we will get what we are getting.
*
Friday, 24 January 2014
Modern women and fertility: Mis-match - ancient psychology, modern conditions
*
Insofar as human nature has been shaped by our evolutionary history, we are adapted with instincts that function to increase our reproductive success on average in the conditions of past societies.
But insofar as modern life differs from the average conditions of the past, so we will lose these adaptations - and may well discover that our 'stone age' instincts lead us to behave in ways that damage our reproductive success.
This is mis-match.
'Culture' can compensate for mis-match - or it can make matters worse.
*
In terms of sexual behaviour in the developed world, it is very obvious that instincts are leading towards extinction, because people (specifically women) are not having enough children to replace themselves; despite that the society is so prosperous that an average woman could raise ten, fifteen, maybe even twenty children.
In fact, personal wealth is irrelevant since every child that is born in the developed world will, one way or another, be materially supported by 'the state' to survive childhood and reach sexual maturity.
Children will not be allowed to starve or die of exposure. Thus, at the individual (marginal) level there is zero limit of resources - only the limitation of biological capacity. For the past century plus, the more children that are born, the more resources that will be appropriated by the state to raise them.
*
So there has never been a better time or place in the history of the world for a random average woman to maximize her reproductive success - and this is a task for which she has been shaped by hundreds, thousands, of generations of natural selection)
YET on average the modern woman in a developed country will choose to have about ONE child.
And that is what anciently-evolved instincts have produced in the context of modern conditions.
Mis-match.
*
Is mainstream modern culture helping?
No - it is making the mis-match worse - chosen fertility is still declining among the women of The West.
*
Could culture be a remedy - could culture fix the mismatch?
Sure. It could be and it does among the minority of women who are traditionally religious (among the major monotheisms, particularly)
*
What does this mean?
That the atomistic individual woman, the self-gratifying isolated atomistic woman, operating in psychological detachment from human community; suffers an extreme and reproductively-fatal mis-match between evolved psychology and modern conditions.
So if 'modern woman' follows her spontaneous instincts in the 'modern world', she will (on average, under modern conditions) be led into reproductive death.
For women living in psychological isolation, anciently-evolved psychology plus modern environment equals reproductive death.
*
But, a woman who lives in the context of a traditionally religious monotheistic community is able to trust her instincts; and under such circumstances she will (on average) achieve reproductive success - not extinction.
**
NOTE: As a further example, women are not 'designed' (i.e. by natural selection) to choose who to marry (and thus who to allow the right of sexual access) purely as individuals; since in all known historical societies (but especially in agricultural societies) such decisions are made in a context of primarily parental arrangements - http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/parental-choice-determines-mating.html. Take female sexual decision-making out of this evolutionary context, and the mis-match between instincts and environment yields maladaptive decision-making - as can be seen in all societies of the modern, developed world.
Insofar as human nature has been shaped by our evolutionary history, we are adapted with instincts that function to increase our reproductive success on average in the conditions of past societies.
But insofar as modern life differs from the average conditions of the past, so we will lose these adaptations - and may well discover that our 'stone age' instincts lead us to behave in ways that damage our reproductive success.
This is mis-match.
'Culture' can compensate for mis-match - or it can make matters worse.
*
In terms of sexual behaviour in the developed world, it is very obvious that instincts are leading towards extinction, because people (specifically women) are not having enough children to replace themselves; despite that the society is so prosperous that an average woman could raise ten, fifteen, maybe even twenty children.
In fact, personal wealth is irrelevant since every child that is born in the developed world will, one way or another, be materially supported by 'the state' to survive childhood and reach sexual maturity.
Children will not be allowed to starve or die of exposure. Thus, at the individual (marginal) level there is zero limit of resources - only the limitation of biological capacity. For the past century plus, the more children that are born, the more resources that will be appropriated by the state to raise them.
*
So there has never been a better time or place in the history of the world for a random average woman to maximize her reproductive success - and this is a task for which she has been shaped by hundreds, thousands, of generations of natural selection)
YET on average the modern woman in a developed country will choose to have about ONE child.
And that is what anciently-evolved instincts have produced in the context of modern conditions.
Mis-match.
*
Is mainstream modern culture helping?
No - it is making the mis-match worse - chosen fertility is still declining among the women of The West.
*
Could culture be a remedy - could culture fix the mismatch?
Sure. It could be and it does among the minority of women who are traditionally religious (among the major monotheisms, particularly)
*
What does this mean?
That the atomistic individual woman, the self-gratifying isolated atomistic woman, operating in psychological detachment from human community; suffers an extreme and reproductively-fatal mis-match between evolved psychology and modern conditions.
So if 'modern woman' follows her spontaneous instincts in the 'modern world', she will (on average, under modern conditions) be led into reproductive death.
For women living in psychological isolation, anciently-evolved psychology plus modern environment equals reproductive death.
*
But, a woman who lives in the context of a traditionally religious monotheistic community is able to trust her instincts; and under such circumstances she will (on average) achieve reproductive success - not extinction.
**
NOTE: As a further example, women are not 'designed' (i.e. by natural selection) to choose who to marry (and thus who to allow the right of sexual access) purely as individuals; since in all known historical societies (but especially in agricultural societies) such decisions are made in a context of primarily parental arrangements - http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/parental-choice-determines-mating.html. Take female sexual decision-making out of this evolutionary context, and the mis-match between instincts and environment yields maladaptive decision-making - as can be seen in all societies of the modern, developed world.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Review of Kindle novelization of The Book of Jer3miah: Premonition, by Luisa Perkins & Jared Adair
*
I saw some of this show-in-short-segments on YouTube, following a discussion on the Junior Ganymede blog http://www.jrganymede.com/2009/08/05/the-book-of-jer3miah/ -
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBookOfJer3miah
And I was sufficiently intrigued to take a look at the novelization on Kindle, initially at the Sample - but then I accidentally bought the whole thing (for nine pounds and five pence! - too much).
So then I had to read it!
*
I liked it a lot. The book is written in a simple and accessible fashion at a young teen level; but the general set-up was very interesting and appealing.
The book is a conspiracy-theory supernatural thriller - of broadly the same genre as Charles Williams novels. That is to say it starts-out with ordinary mundane life which is very soon invaded, on the one hand, by peril - and on the other hand, there is a breakdown of the barriers between the natural and the supernatural.
So, this is a fantasy heroic quest, but in the midst of our world. It is a Mormon novel - set in and around Brigham Young University in Utah; and the supernatural elements have a Mormon context and set of references.
*
As the hero is confronted by trials and tribulations, he progresses and back-slides to attain a convincing breakthrough at the end and becomes an example of how we should live.
The end of this novel was not a complete closure but more of a set-up for the next stage in the spiritual journey.
But the end as it stands was satisfying enough, in an ...I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race... kind of way.
*
I saw some of this show-in-short-segments on YouTube, following a discussion on the Junior Ganymede blog http://www.jrganymede.com/2009/08/05/the-book-of-jer3miah/ -
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBookOfJer3miah
And I was sufficiently intrigued to take a look at the novelization on Kindle, initially at the Sample - but then I accidentally bought the whole thing (for nine pounds and five pence! - too much).
So then I had to read it!
*
I liked it a lot. The book is written in a simple and accessible fashion at a young teen level; but the general set-up was very interesting and appealing.
The book is a conspiracy-theory supernatural thriller - of broadly the same genre as Charles Williams novels. That is to say it starts-out with ordinary mundane life which is very soon invaded, on the one hand, by peril - and on the other hand, there is a breakdown of the barriers between the natural and the supernatural.
So, this is a fantasy heroic quest, but in the midst of our world. It is a Mormon novel - set in and around Brigham Young University in Utah; and the supernatural elements have a Mormon context and set of references.
*
As the hero is confronted by trials and tribulations, he progresses and back-slides to attain a convincing breakthrough at the end and becomes an example of how we should live.
The end of this novel was not a complete closure but more of a set-up for the next stage in the spiritual journey.
But the end as it stands was satisfying enough, in an ...I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race... kind of way.
*