Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The Straight Red Line (4): the Founders

~ Continued from Part III: the Really, Really Usefuls ~

T
hanks to the 1984 interview with former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov and the rather clever person who resurrected it and posted it on YouTube, we now know that this human time bomb was programmed to commit a massive act of treason. That was the whole point of the exercise of which the next stages were supposed to be destabilisation, crisis (revolution) and the consolidation of the Marxist/Leninist state in the West. We will come back to it in the next instalment of the series.

The Bezmenov interview is pertaining to the United States, but we can rest assured that the same program was worked in Western Europe with equal success, if not more so. The Soviet Union having collapsed for good reasons, the psychotic robots now seek to capitulate to the next best thing. Again, it may seem far fetched, but when one looks at the underlying characteristics and the forces at work, it makes perfect ideological sense.

Stephen Hicks in his book "Postmodernism Explained" outlines the philosophical development of subjectivist philosophy [1] since Rousseau, Kant and Hegel. As a reaction to the Enlightenment this school initially sought to accommodate faith, but soon went any other way in developing as a Counter-Enlightenment movement, in opposition to Reason at best, amazingly hostile towards it at worst. Rousseau is in a league of his own in this respect. With Kant we see a tacit approach: still Objective enough to hold that things do exist objectively outside of the mind, but from Hegel and the Irrationalists onwards, the development rapidly moves downhill, reason-ably speaking.

Subjectivist Postmodernism stands for the following characteristics:

- collectivism (as opposed to individualism, the Classical Liberal operative unit);
- reason is limited and constructed (reason being seen as an inferior and poor source of knowledge);
- reality does not exist outside of the mind (Kant's noumenon).

What follows is that Truth/Reality is relative, and that Reason must accept illogical contradictions (antinomies), of which Relativism is simply riddled, in these pages referred to as paradoxymora [2]! This is why we can argue against all the things that are logically wrong with Relativism (and Multiculturalism by extension) until we are blue in the face, the adherents know the antinomies to be part and parcel of the dogma, and a measure of their contempt of Realism and Reason!

Free Will is very much thrown into doubt, and Reality is created by contradictory (dialectic) forces, these being the cause of Growth and Change.

A number of social themes were formulated around the dialectic of the Oppressor versus the Oppressed (see Chart I). Multiculturalists today also speak in terms of a group's 'narrative'.

If Kant was just modestly placing a question mark in favour of Relativism, the later philosophies based on Kant are a hundred percent Subjective and Relativist. In the Counter-Enlightenment movement Hegel was followed by the theists Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard, and the atheists Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

- Schleiermacher: Reason is artificial and limited; Reality is accessible only through faith, emotions and instinct.
- Kierkegaard: choices are made in ignorance.

Atheists Schopenhauer and Nietzsche already show much more signs of our own contemporary Postmoderns: after Reason was rejected they found the return to religion by Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard a cowardly, sad act. Here we truly enter the realm of Totalitarianism and brutality we have come to know so well.

- Schopenhauer: Reality is deeply irrational; it is conflictual Will towards nothing; beyond comprehension. Only by our own Will and Feelings can we grasp Reality. Music - he suggested - could play a role in triggering required instincts.

Nietzsche, a proto Nazi and a Schopenhauer disciple, was completely Reason averse and a great admirer of the stupor brought on by orgiastic Bacchanalia and the frenzy of the Dionysia: consciousness is a weakness; Reason is a tool of weaklings. Meet the madman's platitude: "The yeasayer - the man of the future - will not be tempted to play word-games, but will tap into his deepest drives, his Will to Power and channel all of his instinctual energies in a vital new direction", which the Counter-Enlightenment movement proceeded to do. The rest, is history, partly still in the making: I posit we are yet in for another instalment of Unreason.

Things get even worse with Karl Marx, and Nazi philosopher, Heidegger:

- Reason is a superficial phenomenon;
- getting to the core of Being through Conflict and Contradiction.

Heidegger's Postmodern disciples of our generation are Foucault, Derrida and Rorty (recently deceased), the latter also a fan of Wittgenstein and one of American multiculturalism's founding fathers, Dewey.

I'll come back to these thinkers in some detail, but for now I would like to point out, the direction this irrational Counter-Enlightenment movement and its particular mindset, is taking us. From the Pantheism of the Greek and Roman classics, to the Metaphysics and altruism of Christianity in the Middle Ages, from Reason and Individual Liberty of the Enlightenment, to the Irrationalistic Collectivism - from thereon not backwards to medieval Christian thought where God lays out his Grand Plan for mankind - but to Man as God, to whom conflict is beneficial and the moving force of growth and change, and whose belief in life as a useless exercise in futility results in cynicism and nihilism: the belief that chaos is the natural state of Being and that feelings, emotions, and prime impulses are superior. Is this making any sense to anyone?

The result is a man who believes his ego to be the very centre of the universe, and goes so far as to state that if he isn't watching it, it isn't even there. Not a man who seeks to live according to an ideal that is larger than life, who is nor led by the force of Reason, but who takes primordial impulses and base instincts as his source of knowledge. It has so far led straight to three gigantic blood fests that have cost millions of lives and counting: the French Revolution, Nazism and Communism.

~ To be continued in Part 5, Love of Islam, Loathing of Self: a horror of a riddle: who wrote this? ~

2 comments:

J said...

Good lord Cass. Kant is not really a subjectivist, I don't think, or anti-rationalist--certainly not in the sense that Nietzsche or Schopenhauer or existentialists are. He grants that phenomena exists, independently of our perceptions, but that we are constrained by our own perceptual apparatus, including the noumenal categories of space and time. Kant would unlikely have agreed to Marx's system, and I believe he would have objected to Hegel's misuse of his antinomies. There is a certain subjectivism to the synthetic a priori (and I don't think the arguments for the SAP are "necessary" in a sense), but not nearly as much as with Humean skepticism and the empiricists/constructivists. Kant is no constructivist (that's not to say that constructivism is so easily refuted). It's easy to take pot-shots at thinkers, but proving them wrong is something else.

Cassandra said...

Thanks, J.
Kant may not be a subjectivist as such, he was the first to posit it. For the political argument it is significant that he subordinated reason to religion, and considered noumenal reality closed for reason, which means that certainly spiritually he figures prominently in the Counter-Enlightenment movement. Also because he is a Collectivist and argued that conflicts cause growth. Hicks considers Kant even the most significant thinker of the Counter-Enlightenment.
I'm sure these philosophers agreed and disagreed on lots of issues, but my point here is a political rather philosophical one: Counter-Enlightenment reacts to Enlightenment, through subjectivism on to Marx and Nat'l Socialism (which are not opposed to each other, but to Liberalism), thence to Postmoderism. Furthermore the analogy with the political developments in the Middle East. Hence the mutual attraction between the Left and Radical Islam, sharing: anti-reason, anti individualism, anti capitalism (see Chart I: Straight Red Line) and political justified violence to establish social change. That is the argument.
Thanks for sparring. Cass.