Archive for September 7th, 2006
When Karl Marx was a young man in the 1830s, the huge sensation of the time was Hegel’s Spiritual Dialectic. In the late
eighteenth century the big buzz had been about Rousseau’s Noble Savage. Marx combined the two aqnd came up with Dialectic
Rousseau, who never set foot outside Europe, declared that peoiple outside of civilization were kind, gentle and equal.
Civilization, said Rousseau, caused all the evils and inequalities we are heir to.
I won’t bother explaining dialectic. It’s almost as complicated as it is silly. I would also have to explain how people
in 1830 could have taken it seriously.
But Dialectic Materialism, called Communism, was enforced in the Soviet Empire until the 1980s. It collapsed the minute it
stopped being enforced.
Now look at the spread of time between the philosophies the USSR was based on and the time it fell. Rousseau had been dead
two centurfies and the Hegel craze had been over for a century and a half. In the USSR both were Progressive thought.
The point is this:
When I talk about what social scientists all enforced in the 1950s I am talking about RIGHT NOW. Today’s Political
Correctness is based entirely on the ideas of the first part of this century, not today.
In fact, they are not even based on the knowledge AVAILABLE in 1950.
Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Rousseau all believed in a human behavior which, in the light of the slightest study of real natural
behavior, is beyond the laughable. We now have endless studies showing that every social animal has a heirarchy, which is
what Rousseau said only civilization produced.
In the 1950s you HAD to believe that only mankind has BORDERS. The only thing that prevented a World Government was
capitalism and failures in civilization. Why can’t we be like animals and savages (Political Correctness makes no
distinction) and be Virtuous and UNiversal?
Every social animal patrols its border. The gentle chimpanzee troop patrols regularly, and it will tear any outsider chimp
apart if it is caught in their territory.
What was the reaction of the USSR to these rather obvious findings?
They were suppressed, just as their SOCIAL implications are NEVER talked about in social science courses today. Every social
science professor has to admit that “There ARE genetic factors influencing man’s behavior.” But you will never hear one
single word about anyof them in any social science class, journal, or discussion.
But they find time to drag Marx out of his coffin regularly.
Every year we learn wholew new patterns of gene-based behavior.
But Political Correctness remains firmly rooted in thought that was discredited before 1950.
And Political Correctness reacts the only way outdated thought CAN react. It enforces its ideas like a totalitarian state.
A party which is based primarily on opposing third world immigration, as the Republican Party was based primarily on stopping the spread of slavery, should be called The Preamble Party. It would reject Lincoln’s saying that the French liberal preamble to the Declaration of Independence was the basis of America, “founded onthe principle that all men are created equal” and return to the REAL basis of America, “we the people of hte UNited States and OUR posterity..”
That is what this fight is all about.
Queen Elizabeth has about as much control over what goes on in the U.K. and Canada as the American Eagle does in the U.S. I can’t believe you took the time and bandwidth to make such a comment. Do you guys seriously think that QE II is a driving force behind Canada’s Open Door policy?
Comment by Quent
You are generally correct. Even when George III HAD some power in 1776, it is ridiculous to take a document, the Declaration of Independence, seriously as a statement of principles when it blamed EVERYTHING on the King. The reason they did it was because there was a WAR on and they needed help from pro-American members of Parliament.
The nonsense about all men being equal was an appeal to the French liberals who used the same crap to bring on the French Revolution, the Terror, and Napolean.
But the Queen does have some influence in areas which she feels affects the Crown. She weighed in on behalf of her Subjects who were loyal to HER, in Hong Kong, etc., and who wished to live among her fellow peasants in Britain.
Antis favor the Declaration over the Constitution, the Prambles are 180 degree opposites.
The Queen DID use her imnfluence in favor of bringing in her third world subjects.
That is a lot of influence, even though she exercised no formal power.
Being new to this, I haven’t understood the divisions among the groups and leaders. Wouldn’t it be in our best interest to put those that exist aside or are they too deep to do so?
Comment by Red
It’s not just the leaders. If you try to tell movement websites something constructive they can use, you can be ignored. But if you have some dirt on somebody else in the movement, they will come thronging in, chattering and excited.
So leaders have to fight each other, to keep the throng excited. It’s like any other kind of politics.
Everybody in the movement bitches about how little is being done and go into glories when dirt is being dished out, in the exactly the same way that Americans love nothing but scandals in politics and can’t understand why the system never listens to THEM.