G. Eiríksson Reply:
January 22nd, 2017 at 7:47 am
That community somewhat succumbed to snob after winning WW2 and especially after taking down the Soviet Union.
It´s rather feminised. Narcissistic like a woman enjoying the liberties contraceptisation and pseudoestrogenisation has brought.
Greek hybris « wanton violence, insolence, outrage » originally « presumption toward the gods ».
Even the “alt-Right” is very feminine so far as it is very nihilistic. Royal Kekism and truth-telling are its only redeeming features.
Feminism and Lewd Materialism, crystilized in some forms of Communism and Capitalism, are the vessels through which Nihilism enters, because the accursed share of narcissistic primitive accumulation is never satisfied, indeed it is a black hole; that is never filled until the beast is tamed.
« The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny “the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and ‘Why’ finds no answer” (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity:
What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . . (Will to Power)
Since Nietzsche’s compelling critique, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche’s analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist “shatters the ideals”; the Apollinian nihilist “watches them crumble before his eyes”; and the Indian nihilist “withdraws from their presence into himself.” Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.
In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already “the normal state of man” (The Question of Being). Other philosophers’ predictions about nihilism’s impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that “Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless” (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist’s perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism’s impact are also charted in Eugene Rose’s Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious–and it’s well on its way, he argues–our world will become “a cold, inhuman world” where “nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity” will triumph. »
Thiel however is influenced by Girard, so he might be working against this.
« One afternoon while visiting in Huntsville, I was shown the original 75,000 word German-English technical dictionary, six or so inches thick, specifically created for US industries right after the war in order to exploit Third-Reich rocket and space technology developed in Germany and in the Eastern countries then still in German hands. In the company by these gifted German scientists, I never felt the slightest hostility against their former adversaries, the Western style Allies who had been suckered into a deadly war by largely fabricated Marxist fairytales. »
« The Sexual Revolution in Post-Reform Russia: Left-Radicalism, Feminism and its Connection to Terrorism from 1861 to the Great War Matthew Raphael Johnson Johnstown, PA
The first years after the abolition of serfdom were the time of the last burst of noble luxury. A large mass of cash, value earned by others, was withdrawn from the sphere of production and directed into their own consumption. Lands of the few nobles owning serfs needed to be compensated. The government paid off the nobles, who then sunk into a much deserved oblivion. Peasants then went about buying Russia, making it the most egalitarian European society in terms of land ownership. Within 49 years the peasants had to pay the government back, however, soon, Alexander III canceled these payments. The early years of the 20th century is thus the final stage of moral crisis, the beginning of which was declared by Dostoevsky in the middle of the 1870s. His novel A Raw Youth (sometimes translated as A Teenager or The Adolescent, from the Russian Подросток) saw the new generation of Russians aspiring to be “Rothschilds.” It was rare to find a major writer of most political backgrounds at the time believing any differently. Arkady Dolgoruky, the main character, was a symbol of his era. He is illegitimate, and the son of a landowner who was totally dissolute in his life. He was raised by strangers and has no real home. Under nihilism, only power can be real. The nihilist movement was “scientific” in that it only recognized blind cause and effect. Since wealth was the best means to power, Arkady set upon “being like a Rothschild” as his main goal. The book is a condemnation of the mentality that is at the heart of this paper: the destruction that western liberalism and capitalism wrought on Russia. Arkady adopts the ideas of “global citizenship.” Since there are no moral norms, money raised from the gambling table is the same as money actually earned. The result is that he becomes addicted to roulette, as Dostoevsky apparently was himself. The ideas of the sexual revolution, already present in the “western” capital of St. Petersburg, turn on Arkady as he realizes that the powerful can take his love interest with ease. Because he has bought into the nihilists code, he has nowhere to stand to complain. Struggling to reconcile materialism to freedom, Arkady, in dealing with this cognitive dissonance, is split into two people, a common motif in Dostoevsky. The first is the “rational egoist,” one ostensibly social and constructive, while the other, not really distinct from the first, is the lustful hunter, the one who seeks to possess, exclude and ultimately destroy. Ultimately, only chaos results from this both at a social and psychological level »
Notice the similarities with its American brother:
« But the film takes one step further than this, by analyzing the cultural and political articulations of postwar economic liberalism and thereby leading us onward to the more intricate and disorienting predicaments of the present. It shows how a command-and-control logic focused on the ontology of the enemy was transformed into its seeming opposite: the “open systems” of today’s supposedly borderless world society.
Another accelerated sequence evokes the Macy Conferences of 1946 to 1953, which gathered the outstanding minds of an era to develop the operating technologies of America’s new global governance. Conference members included McCulloch, Pitts, Wiener, Von Neumann, Bateson, Heinz von Foerster, Margaret Mead, Kurt Lewin and many others. These meetings wrote the prehistory of the digital age – but precisely here, where contemporary commentators locate the origins of computing, cognitive science and the Internet, Dammbeck shifts the focus to behavioral research in sociology and psychiatry. He claims that the participants “registered a particular interest” in a book called The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950 under the direction of Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School.15 The authors, including T. W. Adorno, used the statistical methods of empirical sociology to analyze the American population for elements of the “authoritarian matrix” of traditional European nationalism, which in their view had given rise to fascism in Germany. The authoritarian matrix would have to be identified, dismantled and transformed to prevent any future outbreaks of racist or totalitarian aggression. This, for the filmmaker, is the focus of struggle on “the Cold War battlefield of the unconscious,” where cybernetics became the weapon of choice in the configuration of a new world order.
The evidence that Dammbeck can provide for direct connections between the Macy Conferences and The Authoritarian Personality is slim. But it is clear from the historical record that the dissolution of nationalist cultures and the creation of a new “world-mindedness” had been a major preoccupation of American social scientists since the 1940s. The total mobilization of the liberal principles of civilization against the Nazis led the anthropologist and future Macy Conference participant Margaret Mead to declare: “We must see this war as the prelude to a greater job – the restructuring of the culture of the world.” 16 For Mead, cybernetics would be a vital contribution to this civilizing project, because it helped her see how change could be offered as a possibility to be freely chosen, rather than a straitjacket to be imposed by force. Victory in 1944-45 would set the stage for new and highly sophisticated forms of “democratic” social engineering.
Following his dialectical method, Dammbeck focuses on the contributions of the German émigré thinkers to the new American hegemony. The off-screen voice intones: “According to the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, a member of the Macy Group, the old values and balances must be destroyed, in order to make conditions ‘fluid.’” A cut to flashback-style images of laboratory surgery, followed by the zany oscillations of Nam June Paik’s electronic art, gives a hint of how such fluidity could be achieved. “Then it is possible to establish new balances and values,” the cool narrative voice continues. “Re-education will then develop into self-re-education. This would transform the world into a post-national, multi-ethnic society, with no fixed borders.” The scene cuts from a pharmaceutical production line of the 1950s, with thousands of little white pills flowing in even ranks toward their destinations, back to a contemporary American lunch-buffet under electric lights, filled with attractive and colorful dishes from around the globe. A standardized cube of orange jello trembles ever so slightly, like cellular plasma on a spoon.
At this point another figure enters the narrative: Henry Murray, who invented the Thematic Apperception Test used by the researchers of The Authoritarian Personality. Murray, a psychologist, had worked for the US government on a personality profile of Hitler, then devised stress-tests for soldiers. During the war he adopted the ideas of the World Federalist movement and argued for a process of global political unification, which, as he wrote in a letter to Lewis Mumford, “involves transformations of personality such as never occurred quickly in human history; one transformation being that of National Man into World Man.”17 As we hear in the film, “Murray sees psychology and the new social sciences as destined to make a contribution to a world that can live in peace and harmony: in a new world order, with world laws, a world police force and a world government.”
These were the ideals of wartime liberalism, instituted by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and UNESCO, then revived in the 1990s after the fall of the Berlin Wall with the opening of international borders and the meteoric rise of the World Trade Organization. Yet here again we are invited to look at the dark side of the democratic project: for it was also Murray, the idealist of the post-war period, who administered damaging psychological tests to groups of Harvard students in the years 1949-1962. Ted Kaczynski was among the subjects in the year 1958. Although the laboratory reports of these studies have not been released, we know that the future Unabomber was given the code-name “LAWFUL.”
Dammbeck passes over the Harvard period very rapidly, retaining only key clues and symbols. Looking at the documents of the case, one discovers astonishing facts that underlie the tightly edited version of the story in the film. The year-long ordeal administered to the students by Henry Murray was designed to examine the effects of extreme psychological stress in order to improve screening and selection processes for the military. It required the participants to spend a month writing a statement of their highest ideals, in preparation for what they were told would be an inspiring discussion with a brilliant young lawyer. But in reality the lawyer’s role was to engage in character assassination, totally destroying the ideal ego of the experimental subject. For Murray, this one-to-one combat was a chance to explore the smallest of all social units, what he called “the dyad”: the exact point where psychology spills over into sociology. In other words, it was a chance to explore the psychodynamics of a social system under conditions of intense aggression, where the very plasticity of being is exposed to violent metamorphosis.18 Here again, at the heart of a carefully calibrated laboratory experiment unfolding in the calm and privileged atmosphere of a liberal university, we discover the ontology of the enemy.
Das Netz confronts us with the demons of the past: the inscriptions of the Cold War military-industrial complex on an individual psyche, standing in for the experiences of an entire population. But the important question is what this final avatar of military-industrial coercion could mean later on, in Ted Kaczynski’s adult life in 1970s and 1980s, and then again in our own era. What becomes of the world laboratory during the heyday of alternative cybernetics and “open systems”? And in what form do its violent experiments return, in the age of unlimited surveillance and the War on Terror?
Blowback in Society
The extravagant, utopian world of the year 2000, buoyed up by speculation on the Internet revolution, was suddenly shaken by the attacks of September 11. A forgotten atmosphere sprang back to the fore: executive privilege, domestic surveillance, military secrecy. Dammbeck’s strategy in Das Netz is to examine the networked society through the dark crystals of Cold War behavioral science, in the attempt to catch some prescient glimmer of America’s resurgent will to social control and sovereign power in the present. The intellectuals on whom he focuses all provide insights into the artificial nature of today’s society. During the 1940s, the sociologist Kurt Lewin was preoccupied with such questions as how to contribute to the war effort by changing the eating habits of average families. His highly influential research on group dynamics showed that citizens of a democracy could be far more effectively manipulated when they were given an active role in the process that changed their own beliefs.19 As for Henry Murray, his early work in personality assessment is considered “the first systematic effort to evaluate an individual’s personality to predict his future behavior.”20 It was subsequently used by the personnel departments of major corporations and by the CIA for the recruitment of foreign agents. Moreover, the personality assessment of Hitler which Murray produced during the war featured extensive commentary on the German national psyche, its relationship to the Nazi leadership and the most effective ways to shake that authoritarian grip and convert the population to a more liberal mentality.21 But it is the scholars with the least substantiated links either to the Macy Conferences or to Kaczynski – namely, the Frankfurt School and their study of The Authoritarian Personality – that allow Dammbeck to forge his most provocative speculations on the artificially induced “second nature” of contemporary society.
There is a parallel here with my own research into the psychosocial transformations of contemporary culture. In an essay called “The Flexible Personality,” published in 2002, I tried to show how a more pliable subjectivity emerged from the 1960s revolts against the military regimentation and industrial discipline that had produced the authoritarian character.22 The critique of the time was largely successful, according to this argument; but the openness of counter-cultural practices also proved remarkably amenable to the needs of the emerging neoliberal economy. The highly adaptive production system of the 1980s and 1990s, with its exaltation of mobility and its emphasis on cultural labor, was informed and qualified by the preceding attempts at a revolution of everyday life, whose demands for flattened hierarchies and spontaneous communications finally helped legitimate the new electronic toolkits and to distract attention from their built-in capacities for surveillance, exploitation and oppression. Flexibility, in short, was a ruse of capitalist history. Thus the authoritarian personality gave way to its dialectical successor.
Dammbeck’s analysis of Internet culture also hinges on this transition away from authoritarianism. But his conclusions are far more radical. Recurrent images of industrialized food services, coupled with scenes of people swallowing LSD on paper strips and sugar cubes, insinuate the idea that the fluid, borderless culture of a liberal “open system” was literally fed to Americans in the 1960s, along with the softer utopia of an alternative cybernetics. One generation later, he suggests, that same kind of culture was exported to the entire world by the multimedia magic of the Internet, bringing the liberal utopia to its culmination in the globalized economy. Here is where the focus on specific social scientists takes on an uncanny pertinence. It is as though Lewin’s experiments in manipulating a population’s eating habits with the full consent of the participating subjects had been applied on a massive scale, across several concerted waves of societal transformation.
No doubt this all sounds conspiratorial, if not frankly delirious. But when you know that the vast majority of early LSD research was sponsored by the CIA’s MKULTRA program – acting through the Macy Foundation among others – then such radical speculations take on their full significance.23 To be sure, as John Marks indicates, “the men from MKULTRA remained oblivious, for the most part, to the rebellious effect of the drug culture in the United States.”24 But as we have seen, nothing could be more widespread in postwar America than the involvement of social scientists in experiments seeking to impart the liberal values of a capitalist democracy even while insuring their military-industrial foundations. Where the CIA acted out brutal fantasies of “mind control” – going so far as to slip LSD-laced whiskey to unsuspecting clients in a phony brothel outfitted with two-way mirrors, or working with doctors who administered the drug in conjunction with electroshock therapy – social scientists like Murray and Lewin set up less intrusive, more rigorous and ultimately more effective experiments. What Das Netz asks us to perceive and measure are their continuing consequences on our own minds and sensoriums. »
A wee stop in Austria-Hungary:
« “In the third chapter of his autobiography World of Yesterday, entitled ‘Eros Matutinus’, Stefan Zweig describes the hypocritical sexual morality that he encountered when growing up in early 20th-century Vienna.
1. Zweig’s motivations for critiquing hypocritical sexual morality
Stefan Zweig, an Austrian of Jewish Descent, started his literary career by participating in writers’ circles in his native Vienna. He later cultivated literary acquaintances in Paris, Belgium, and Holland. In 1917, he gathered with some of them in Switzerland to promote their collective body of work that was critical of the war. In the United States, he is best known for his short story Letter from an Unknown Woman that was made into an American film starring Joan Fontaine.
Zweig lived in the Austrian Age of Progress that transformed formerly autocratic, aristocratic, and Catholic Austria-Hungary into a country of religious freedom, middle-class ascendancy, and constitutional monarchy with voting rights for its citizens. His critique of sexual mores reflected his hopes to further the Age of Progress by changing the culture to reflect reason and common sense. In his opinion, allowing young men to satisfy their natural sexual instincts would be another step forward for freedom in society. »
Back to Russia:
« The nobility of the Russian Empire, at one point accustomed for centuries to serve the throne and Fatherland, ingloriously left the stage. They also led the revolutionary movements. Not quite capitalist, not traditional, ideologically confused and altogether secular, these indebted families, the target of all royal policy from Ivan III onward, went to the cities and led the liberal revolution in 1905. After the freedom of the serfs in 1861, the nobles were to be compensated for their lost labor. The fact that the Emperor can easily cancel these payments shows the irrelevance of this class. The nobility did not invest the money in the improvement of Russia, but preferred to consume in their wasteful lifestyle. Thus was laid the cornerstone of the imminent coming of economic impoverishment and ruin of the nobility on the one hand, and the collapse of the Russian Empire – on the other. The “wives of the Decembrists” were the initial leaders of the proto-feminist movement in Old Russia. The most powerful and elite names in Russian life engaged in an oligarchical uprising against Nicholas I that has been lionized as “democratic” by an American historical establishment not well schooled in irony.
Names such as Volkonskaya, Trubetskaya, Annenkova, Muravievya, Naryshkina and Fonvizina, just to name a few, read like a history book of Russian history since the Troubles. These were the elites who revolted as the “Decembrists” I 1825, and now, their wives were to do their part for the New Age. Such ultra-elite names showed the titanic power backing feminism and social decay. These were the same names that sought to overthrow royal power since the earliest days of the Moscow autocracy. These were the same names that one reads about that tried to overthrow Ivan IV and Boris Gudenov, installed “tsar oligarch” Vasili Shuskii during the Russian time of troubles in the early 17th century, installed Peter I and his Masonic clique in the very late 17th century, ruled as an oligarchical, pagan cult throughout the 18th century and now, in the 19th century, sought the Jacobin Revolution in Russia.1
The upper reaches of the nobility were anything but conservative. They were deeply Masonic and pagan. It is the same families and the same ideology: pagan statism and absolutism. They were elitist revolutionaries. At the turn of the century in Petersburg, many of these name families consecrated themselves to Dionysus and used the artificial “crystal palace” as their symbol. This served as the epicenter for the rich and powerful in Peter’s “Floating City.” The desire was to bring “Parisian” manners to Russia, as it was understood to mean at the time. To be “Parisian” was to be Bohemian and politically revolutionary. Gypsy choirs, seen as libertine and non-Christian, were used to bring the Dionysian feelings to their apex while the vodka flowed. The idle rich, the old noble families long replaced and the salon women were willing to listen to any “spiritualist” that flattered them. The males were almost all deeply involved in Freemasonry and Jacobin politics.
The females had other pastimes (Ekshtut, 2010).
— A number of special studies emphasizes the social significance of their acts in
exile. For the first time, a woman had become involved in Russian politics. This
contributed to the formation of a new type of Russian woman. The Decembrist
protest against the accepted norms of social behavior brought them to the first step
towards the formation of women’s self-consciousness and emancipation, perhaps
not even subconsciously. In subsequent years, women began to claim their rights
to equality with men, education, work and participation in social struggles
The strange analysis here is typical of the westernized Russian historian. Apparently, the slew of immensely powerful female women from St. Olga to Marfa Boretskaya2 to Catherine II escaped her, but these were hardly the first women involved in politics. It is ironic how the ultraelite (and they remained so in exile, which was not difficult or arduous) are seen to be fighting “accepted norms of social behavior.” They were the norms of behavior. Worse, that this feminism and sexual revolution is traced back to the most powerful and elite families in Russia whose recent history made them to be tyrants of the first order. Oligarchy was their only concern, but they needed a chaotic social system from which to emerge. Stable identities are the enemy of all revolutions.
The strange analysis here is typical of the westernized Russian historian. Apparently, the slew of immensely powerful female women from St. Olga to Marfa Boretskaya2 to Catherine II escaped her, but these were hardly the first women involved in politics. It is ironic how the ultraelite (and they remained so in exile, which was not difficult or arduous) are seen to be fighting “accepted norms of social behavior.” They were the norms of behavior. Worse, that this feminism and sexual revolution is traced back to the most powerful and elite families in Russia whose recent history made them to be tyrants of the first order. Oligarchy was their only concern, but they needed a chaotic social system from which to emerge. Stable identities are the enemy of all revolutions. It is not difficult to see, therefore, that revolution had a female cast from the beginning. As the traditional rulers of the home, these westernized libertines sought to revoke the old moral order in their revolutionary praxis. Their husbands sought to do it politically, they sought to do it privately. The wives of the Decembrists, especially the elite families Trubetskoy and Volkonsky, become centers around which the new left was created in Siberia. The wives of the exiled Decembrists had a tremendous impact on the formation of the Russian female character, accentuating the virtues of self-sacrifice for the new cause. Psychological Revolution in Russian Literature Post-reform Russia destroyed the idea of woman. Gradually, from the revolution of Peter I, the woman became an object of male desire and her worth was measured accordingly. The elite crust of urban High Society led the way in destroying Russian manners and Christian customs. The slogan of the elite was “freedom of the will outside prudence and decency” as the consequences of western capitalism made their way through the once strictly Christian society. This use of the orgy was described by Peter Dmitrievich Boborykin (1836-1921) in the novel Evening Sacrifice (1868). This “hellish scene,” a pagan, unbridled orgy with ten men, deliberately took place during Lent, when the Orthodox Church does not bless even marital conjugal intimacy. After the publication of the novel, Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, in an anonymous 1868 review, revealed that these were elite initiations into what was called the “Athenian Vespers.” Boborykin writes: The youth are today filled with the revolutionary idea of not taking the old morals Russia seriously. They feel the passionate need to develop themselves and their views on life; to live according to their new moral and social rules and requirements. This was strongly permeated all among those who were called nihilists. The movement was just as destructive as constructive (Boborykin, 1868).3 Evening Sacrifice is a novel essential to any analysis of the era. Mary M, the heroine, is convinced that her husband never loved her. Upon visiting her friend, she catches her with a new lover. Intrigued with this lifestyle, she quickly succumbs. The elite of Petrograd are fond of citing commonplace cliches about Spinoza and Rousseau (usually incorrectly), and this provides the thinnest of justifications for their lifestyle. As she falls deeper and deeper into this Bacchanal, she is rescued by Stepan Labazina. Mary goes from philosophical view to philosophical view, throwing herself into different lifestyles before realizing that she is nothing – there is nothing behind the masks. [Cf. The Mask of Sanity, f.p. 1941.]
The dual events of Tsar Nicholas’ death and the freedom of serfs created a turning point in the consciousness of the public, and the “woman’s issue” was now mainstream. In S. Nechayev’s Catechism of a Revolutionary, the family is denied entirely, while AI Herzen, financed in London by the Rothschilds, sees the family as an institution protecting the “corruption of men.” Famed leftist and materialist N. Chernyshevsky went even further, recognizing the right of women to free love as part of the revolutionary creed. IV Stasov argues that the failure of the small farms of the lower nobility and the rise of a “noble proletariat” of impoverished families with noble titles, created an individualist ethos where families disintegrated and women were left without support. The incorruptible Emperor Alexander III shocked the slightest impropriety in family relationships, it does not hide his disfavor those of his relatives who violated the sanctity of the bonds of marriage. However, members of the imperial family is not terrible, even the august anger. Grand Dukes did not consider it necessary to imitate the Emperor in his pious family life. They openly kept mistresses, the many sported second families and illegitimate children. The elite press enjoyed “exposing” these foibles along with a very liberal approach to truth. In seeking to undermine the authority of the fairly popular Alexander, the press began circulating rumors (some quite accurate) about the moral failures of more distant royal relatives. »
« Just as a materialist rejecting free will can argue for freedom and equality among human beings that are not distinct from the rest of creation is not a lapse in thought of logic, but a concealing of the nature of this “utopia.” Its symbol is the Crystal Palace, as the new architecture is glass and metal. All work is mechanized, all exists in abundance and there seems to be no ruler except for the ever-present causality, mechanism and determinism.
Happiness exists only for those whose memories have been erased. Enjoyment comes with little work; overt rule does not exist; all evolve upward with no sinking to a “common denominator.” Passions do not control man since both love and reason check its power. Where this freedom comes from is not mentioned. The Goddess of Freedom and Equality is joined by the Goddess of the “Love of Humanity” where all national boundaries are erased. She is termed the “elder sister” meaning she is more primal and more significant than “freedom” and equality. Chernyshevsky begins to drop hints – as he did above — that there is more at work here than this simplistic image depicts. The new Goddess can take on the features of any ethnic group without having any identity of her own. In fact, the entire idea of identity is dropped out. The “Love of Humanity” takes a more practical shape when the Palace itself is built by “foreign workers.” These do the work, along with the machines, while the actual residents of the palace have little to do but “walk beside” them. Equality of women in marriage was the basic principle in Chernyshevsky. For him, sexual freedom was always prominent as a clear consequence. The rise of capitalism in Russia meant the rise of both foreign ideas and the domination of the west. As early as 1860 ML Mihaylov wrote: “Participation in the work of industry, science and art in general should be available to everyone as an adult member of society.” Maximizing the labor pool in industry is the very first focus of early feminism. Chernyshevsky was no different, in that his heroine finds happiness and fulfillment “in the workplace.” Sexuality was paramount as Chernyshevsky advocated a “revolving door” system of “marriage” where women can be passed from man to man “with respect.” The earliest manifestation so feminism before 1861 all concerned their “freedom to labor. »
«Capitalism, sexual liberalism, paganism, Judaic control and feminism are all one and the same movement in Russia. While the bulk of the peasantry and the church remained faithful, the rich and powerful were Moloch – the god of abortion and capitalism; the ancient form of childsacrifice in Tyre, where children were killed in a belly of the idol in exchange for profits. The elite decayed as the royal world was destroyed. From Peter I until Nikolai I, the crown was either non-existent or purely secular. The 18th century saw the destruction of the Russian tsarist idea as Orthodox churches in the empire were destroyed to where, by the start of the 19th century, there were less than half of their original number. Capitalism is a universal solvent. Seeking to bring all social relations under the control of money, it reduces human acts to mere power and control. The sexual revolution follows in its wake without fail, especially among those consecrated to its existence. Like in the Old Testament, the oligarchy of Tyre (powerful enough to ensnare Solomon himself) sought to use sacrifice to maintain its power. St. John the Baptist felt the consequences of sexual lust as he was beheaded, as did Pope Sixtus II, as the victim of the magical rites of the Emperor Valerian. In Russia, the upper nobility had the most to gain from the revolution, and so they threw themselves in it from the Novgorod oligarchy in the middle ages to the 1905 Revolution. Money was more powerful than faith, family and nation and women were at the forefront of them all. »
An ancient and a global affair:
« We may instance here the teaching of Al-Bistami, who was quoted as having advocated a return to a pre-Islamic cult through sufism. This cult, which various groups, operating together or alone, but, whether they are aware of it or not, synergetically, while from time to time in conflict with each other, have been trying to spread, by the means either of exotericism (the Abrahamic religions) or of esotericism in the spiritual field, is the Chthonic-Telluric worship of the Great Mothers of nature, which derives ultimately, to quote Evola in ‘Guerra occulta nell’antichità – Roma, i “Libri Sibillini” e l’ebraismo’ (‘Occult War in Antiquity – Rome, the “Sibylline Books” and Judaism’), from a “substratum of ethnic, religious and even mystical elements in which a strong Semitic-Pelasgian component is unquestionable.” This substratum gives birth to a social organisation in which women exercise political functions and politics is subordinated to economics ; juridically, it is based on the doctrine of so-called ‘natural right’, which posits equality between all human beings, and between men and women, as stated in the notorious “Déclaration des droits de l’homme”, whose evil Edmund Burke once warned against with an appropriate scorn ; in the “Universal Declaration of the United Nations”, the “European Convention of Human Rights”, etc., all of whose evils Michel Villey warned against with a similar scorn ; politically, it finds expression either in democracy, whether parliamentary or not, or in its borderline form : tyranny. At the risk of disappointing some people, we must make it clear that the Jews, who are along with the Chinese possibly the most feminine people on earth, are only instruments of the forces of chaos, or infra-human forces, which are behind this process which has led the West to gynaecocracy ; among their most efficient instruments, to be sure, but merely instruments nonetheless. »
« It is perhaps significant that Lewis makes no distinction between Spengler and his defence of “Faustian” culture, and men like Darwin, Einstein, Schopenhauer and Bergson. For him they are all guilty of the same heresy because all have contributed by their work to man’s loss of individuality. Lewis asserts that biology, mathematics and metaphysics as developed by Darwin, Einstein and Bergson have acted upon one another to produce the “time-philosophy,” which does away with the traditional categories in all fields of experience and enquiry, stresses the organic and dynamic aspects of life and reveres life in the raw as opposed to life disciplined and organized by the mind. Thus “Bergson’s ‘creative evolution’ is as Darwinian as was the ‘will to power’ of Nietzsche,” (p. 209) and his “élan vital” is equivalent to Schopenhauer’s “will.” The political implications of these philosophical doctrines are obvious: by emphasizing the unconscious in man, they make him lose his individuality, for man can only be an individual when he is conscious. Having lost his individuality, he lives in a state of “common humanity” and gives precedence to what Plato calls “the mob of the senses.” Life at this level is purely “sensational,” and we know that Lewis associates the life of the senses with the “subhuman” majority. This loss of individuality necessarily leads to political democratization. People are encouraged to give up their personal responsibility and to hand over their life to the community: “Discouragement of all exercise of will, or belief in individual power, that is the prevalent contemporary attitude for better or for worse.” (p. 306) On the other hand, the doctrine of action which derives from the Darwinian doctrine of “‘the struggle for existence” and from Bergson’s vitalism leads to fascism. Bergson’s philosophy is thus held responsible for the development of both communism and fascism. Lewis himself was to become an admirer of fascism, particularly of the German brand, but when he recanted his fascist opinions just before the Second World War, he again associated fascism with democracy on the ground that both were mass movements. Meanwhile, he also attacked at length Behaviorism, which, so he thought, gave the final blow to consciousness and substituted the body for the mind. Professor Watson, he said, describes man as a human body or a machine which possesses only instincts and habits but no mind. Still, the worst mischief-maker remains Bergson, whom Lewis even accuses of dishonesty. Though he often declares that philosophers are the victims of politicians who exploit their ideas for their own purposes, where Bergson is concerned, he asserts that the latter’s philosophy deliberately attempts to deceive men and ultimately aims at destroying individuality.”
“Homosexuality is a branch of the Feminist Revolution since large-scale male perversion is the logical male answer to the New Woman. “Homosexuality is a department of Social Revolution”; (p. 389) it is essentially a romantic and sentimental phenomenon, a “snobbery or cult” encouraged, together with feminism, in order “to lay the foundations of a neuter-class of child-less workers” and to destroy the European Family already doomed by the machine-age.”
“(…) the general argument of The Human Age, might be described as follows: the Bergsonians, who insist on the necessity to develop intuition at the expense of the intellect, encourage man to indulge in the senses and in the confusion of his inner world. By exploring his subconscious, man brings out what is lowest in him, and the importance he gives to instincts naturally leads him to a cult of the child, in whom instinct is predominant, and to a cult of what is primitive in man. The child-cult is associated to the mother-cult; as a result of the growing feminism, man, who is despised for his virility, is tempted to turn homosexual. Lewis considers that feminism, homosexuality and contempt for the male, which are responsible for the destruction of the family, are exploited by politicians who are only too glad to divest people of their differences and reduce them to neuter will-less beings. They incite people to sexual perversion or merely endeavour to transform them into sense- or sex-machines, which will diminish their self-control, impair their intellect and make them more pliable and submissive. They also deprive man of his claim to individuality by insisting that the human personality is part of the surrounding world. Philosophical communism conduces to political communism, and this is how most Western countries to-day are infected with it. No action is intact. Lewis also considers communism or socialism as a means used by Big Business to exploit the great majority of people, the middle class even more than the masses. Indeed, although the masses are being stupefied into a state of quasi-animalism, they enjoy privileges that the middle class don’t have. Lewis has developed this last point with obsessive emphasis in Rotting Hill (1951).”
For the United States is the nation best exemplifying in embryonic form the world order in which these things will be established. The familiar simile of the melting pot fascinates him: he sees America as “the great big promiscuous grave into which tumble, and there disintegrate, all that was formerly race, class, or nationhood.” In a remarkable chapter entitled “The Case Against Roots,” he praises rootlessness as a necessary condition of world citizenship, and points out that no one is really rooted in America, “everyone has left his roots over in Poland or Ireland, in Italy or in Russia, so we are all floating around in a rootless Elysium.” In a similar manner he views the standardization of life with its wiping out of regional peculiarities and prejudices as the forerunner of the standardization of world culture, an irreversible trend under industrialism.”
“Before the war Lewis had shown sympathy for fascism in his 1926 work The Art of BeingRuled (‘I am not a communist; if anything I favour some form of fascism rather than communism’)” and been grouped by T. S. Eliot with a number of writers who ‘incline in the direction of some kind of fascism’. »
In 2016, one magistrate out of two is a woman in England and Wales ; 80 percent of magistrates in Poland are women. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that, after having found its way in the courtrooms in post-WW2 Europe, the theory put forward by the Jewish criminologist Lombroso in the early XXth century, whereby « the atavistic determinism of the ‘born criminal’ amounted to relativise; guilt, crime » (J. Evola, Psicologia Criminale Ebraica, in La Difesa della Razza, 18), lays down the law, and the criminal is often considered, and actually tried, as if he was the victim, and the victim, the criminal. « La victime est-elle coupable ? Le rôle de la victime dans le meurtre en vue de vol » (« Is the victim guilty? The part of the victim in a theft crime »’) is the title of a book published in 1971 by Presses de l’Université de Montréal ; the jurist who asked this question, a certain Ezzat A. Fattah, is a male jurist. A female jurist surely has the answer, and is only too keen to show she does in her practice. No matter how feminine, a male jurist may have to force his nature, be it slightly, to take Lombrosos’s theory seriously, and Lombroso himself had to force his, when he built it. On the other hand, it is inscribed in a woman’s genes : her legendary more or less well-hidden innate feeling of guilt greatly helps her feeling innocent. The innocent are by definition those who share her feelings. The guilty is by definition the one who embodies a higher law, a higher principle, and manifests, radiates it. For portraying women in his plays as mad, blood-thirsty and depraved, Euripides is tried by the women of Athens gathered at the thesmophoria, who intend to request the death penalty. Women, by their very nature, cannot render justice (ius), but are perfectly qualified to apply so-called natural law, and this is precisely why courtrooms have been feminised. The more the political circus has been stuffed with women, the more freedom of trade and financial flows without barriers, without any limitation, any restriction in the movement of goods, services and people, has become widespread, the more border control has loosened, the more what was left of the State has vanished. The feminisation of the public service has led to the de facto privatisation of the public service. « Parity » will only be achieved when 100 % of the jobs; in the third sector – are held by women. Women are key to globalisation. In fact, globalisation is just a fancy word for feminisation. Globalisation is an externalisation of woman’s nature, and, ultimately, of the materia prima, the « potentiality, absolutely ‘undistinguished’ and undifferentiated universal substance. », to quote R. Guénon. The expression « Mother Earth » is no longer the property of the (Yes)Wiccan(!) movement, it is found in an increasing high number of UN documents. « International Mother Earth Day » was established in 2009, Countless « Mother Earth Rights » conferences, forums, meetings, seminars, congresses are held each year. The U.N. Fourth Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 featured a full-size « reconstruction » of a supposed « ancient matriarchal village, » complete with a giant pair of female breasts, one above the other, to guard the entrance. Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, and so-called « father of Global Education », whose « World Core Curriculum », progressively implemented by all educational institutions, through self-styled State Education Departments, is founded on the teachings of the Theosophist Alice Bailey and of her Tibetan teacher, was one of his worshippers. He collected a following. While acadhimmics are as ardent to deride clear testimonies of the existence of matriarchal societies in Antiquity as they are eager to push the stroller on week-ends, Amazonism; misnamed ” Feminism ” – has become self-congratulatory, and its arrogant victory sheer are increasingly echoed in mainstream media, either in a veiled manner , or, in the bosom of the Jewess Montaigu’s pamphlet called The Natural Superiority of Women (1999) »