Causing
Stirs
C.W.
Rietdijk, D. Sc.
|
|
At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of
ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept
without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other,
but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing
orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely
unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the
popular press or in the high-brow periodicals. |
|
1 The idea of a realistically
four-dimensional block universe – in which past
and future exist like the present (beyond our “horizon”) – indicates natural
law to refer to four-dimensional processes
and their outcomes rather than three-dimensional objects and fields. (See for “block universe” also (via Google)
<Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument> and <Four-dimensional Reality and
Determinism; an Answer to Stein>.) This means a large step towards Einstein’s
God does not play dice, neither in microphysics nor with human destiny.
2 The only way to harmonize science and
religion is natural law appearing to be so much non-locally coherent that it
does not only govern local causality but macro outcomes too. For such harmony,
science and rationalism should abandon reductionist locality whereas religion
and holisms should abandon “sorcery”.
3 What’s against torture for amusement if
good and evil are relative?
4 Why make sacrifices for a community and
its values if the latter cannot objectively be based?
5 Ignoring serious arguments amounts to
bad faith.
6 About all cultures, their values,
institutions, traditions and taboos have in common that they will make prevail
the interests of the powerful on the happiness of the majority.
7 Who knows a third way between
ratio-empiricism and troubled waters?
8 I experience an unserious mentality as
well as the absurd as mocking my soul, that deems its longings, hope and
anxiety as not very important.
9 A vital responsibility of culture, the
community and the authorities is making the evolutionary survival of the
fittest struggle both more humane and more efficient. Therefore, genetic
quality, love of one’s neighbour, progress and the enforcement of integrity should
be primary.
10 What “new outlook on reality” abstract
or “conceptional” art such as Warhol’s, Rauschenberg’s or COBRA did ever
produce?
11 Egalitarianism is also popular because the
rearguards feel flattered while the smart don’t feel offended because they
understand it is all bunk.
12 The state of true freedom of speech can
be seen from the number of people who publicly advocate eugenics or ridicule
Marcel Duchamp or James Joyce.
13 Inflated rights of defendants – right to
silence, release on a technicality, ne bis in idem,… – are exemplary as to modern Western society’s main failing at all:
softness on evil. (Think of social abuses, anti-socials, rejection of eugenics,
tolerance with respect to cruel and corrupt regimes even if they can easily be
toppled,…)
14 The progress-mindedness of current
“progressives” can be seen from their siding with the underclass rather than
eugenics and genetic engineering on man.
15 Orthodoxy, convention and political
correctness hate “abdominal sentiments” for similar reasons why they distrust
free sexuality and awakened reason: awakened primary emotions undermine dogma
and manipulation just as articulate reason does.
16 Rationalism is giving arguments
(observation and reason) the last word in all possible questions, even in
weighing emotions and passions. Anti-rationalists will shy away from seriously
discussing various problems because they feel their position to be weak. They
prefer to revert to myth, convention, dogma, basic uncertainty or the
subjective rather than argument…
17 Most public discussion became pointless
because virtually no social problem will still be ascribed to (unconscious)
ill-will in behalf of disguised interests. That is, the dimension of evil will be repressed, in spite of what Machiavelli taught us about the
(unconscious) motives of power-seeking rulers. From the underclass up to the
establishment every interest group is spared in mainstream discussion on social
problems. “Conspiracy theories” are taboo, also if the “conspiracy” appears
unconsciously.
18 If you derive your basic values and
ideals from your culture and social environment, what then are you yourself?
19
The left – “man should take his destiny rationally
into his own hands” – largely turned into its opposite: relativism,
multi-cultural bias as to traditionalistic value systems, support of
anti-intellectualistic education and incoherent art, often rejection of
performance ethic and acquiescence in the spirit of “here-and-now” of the
underclass, youth culture and consumption mentality.
20 The original sin: their genes causing
most people to be more emotionally involved in sports result than in the
chutzpah of the release of a defendant on a technicality.
21 Many feel my core theory – to the effect
that an unconscious bias towards serving vested interests is at the basis of
most or all unenlightened ideas and values – to be implausible. Still, it is a
priori obvious. For what other theory can simply and
coherently (from one plausible starting point) explain the five absurdities
constituted by moral relativism, the idea that a bike tyre on a stool (Duchamp)
means a revolution in art, the belief that on average the offspring of
hooligans is equally valuable as that of the Harvard elite (anti-eugenics), the
idea that education can better promote the discovery of Napoleon and Ohm’s Law
by the pupils themselves than emphasize coherent textbooks, and the assertion
that emotional catharsis by beauty sex amounts to is “sinful” in most cases? It
(my theory) is the more obvious because its plausible starting point (the one
of the red thread in history and the counteraction of it) can also explain nationalism,
anti-Semitism, political correctness, the domination of irrational philosophy
and the “clergyfication” of the intelligentsia. (See also elsewhere on this website, and 59 below.)
22 Many social problems remain unsolved
because the “left” represses or taboos the essential genetic and moral aspects
of the underclass, immigration, addiction, educational and crime problems. Such
repression is of much help to the “disadvantaged industry”. The right does not
oppose all of this because it is integrated with the “left” in shielding
(other) vested interests (the rich, religion, anti-rationalism, tradition, the
medical and juridical professions,…).
23 The idea that our speech-makers and
political, business and academic establishments are in good faith is refuted by
their mere participation in the continuation of taboos [on eugenics and the
genetic factor, on ridiculing Duchamp, on sociological explanations that expose
vested interests such as of the juridical establishment (and its self-seeking
pushing of softness and complication) and the disadvantaged industry].
24 The dynamics of society can be much
enhanced by abolishing special-interest legislation and bureaucracy, and by
focussing law and policy on enforcing integrity and stimulation of the dynamics
of progress. Specimens: reduce taxes to income, and subsidies to the spearheads
of policy such as fundamental research. Further, substitute most social
programs by one negative taxation on guiltlessly low income.
25
Suppose you don’t like relatively enlightened modern
Western civilization. Well, then your instincts will tend to be positive about
immigration from Third-World countries and about multi-culturalism…
26 It is a misconception that most failures
of socio-political projects or policies come from the relevant problems to be
“not easily solvable”. In actual fact, they come from unconscious motives or
interests that sabotage solutions. For example, Robespierre’s, Napoleon’s,
Lenin’s and Stalin’s lust for power “spoilt everything”. If rational values,
integrity and compassion would have been their core guides, their fanaticism
would have been an asset… Within this scope, public figures will not want what
they say but what they do or what they foster by what they are not doing (which will be precisely the
above failures). The basic answer to
this is the utmost clarity, transparency and coherence. That is, no myths, no
taboos, open discussion, realistic freedom of speech, also about what is taboo:
inferior genes, eugenics and the bad faith of various social actors such as
discussed on this website. But the opponents evade discussion. They prefer
things not to be defined by rational argument but various troubled waters to
continue. Hence political correctness, silence about the motives behind
dominating irrational philosophies and schools of art, as well as anti-intellectualist
educational reforms,… See also 27.
27 Einstein wrote: “Science is explaining
as many as possible phenomena from a minimum of hypotheses or axioms”. Now
compare various unexplained phenomena: (a) massive attention to the contorted
philosophies and verbalism of many twentieth-century thinkers, (b) the
pervasiveness of relativism, postmodernism and the “life has no meaning” idea,
(c) hardly any criticism of incoherent modern art, (d) anti-Semitism, (d) the
association of sex with sin rather than beauty by most of religion and
conservatism, and various other criticized standpoints referred to elsewhere on
this site. Then it is obvious that they can all be explained from the one
hypothesis that the anti-enlightened mentality and interests of the 18th and
19th centuries still are turning against enlightened rational coherence and
transparency. They only do so now in more indirect and disguised ways for
self-protection. Their common import is also associated with what we earlier
called the R(elativism)-U(ncertainty) paradigm. Such combined explanation as
anti-Enlightenment (anti-“red thread”)
perfectly fits in Einstein’s definition. (Note that frustrating sexuality
obstructs “free trade in emotions” like traditional censorship does to the free
trade in ideas; also mind in connection with non-religious anti-Semitism that
from about 1850 Jews were disproportionately in the forefront of “modernity” in
a very broad sense.)
28 I.L. Horowitz, A.C. Zijderveld and S.
Andreski earlier argued that sociology largely degenerated into a round game as
it shunned most major issues of our culture, paraphrasing on paraphrases of
details. Inter alia, even three uttermost
important (non-beta) cornerstones of any positive secular civilization became
side issues at best. That is, (a) the idea of progress, (b) the public
awakening to the true motives of the main social actors (the establishment),
and (c) forcing these motives into the ideals of integrity, efficiency and
progress. This further means that not only sociology but also other vital
sectors of activity in society became such round games. Think of politics,
bureaucracy, literature, most unions purporting to be interested in ideas,…
And, of course, think of draining energy to the greatest current non-issue of
all: sports. In all of these sectors, power and/or egoism continue to transcend
their contributions to social evolution.
29 If Bohemians had something important to
say they would not have become of the happy-go-lucky kind but would have gone
on their way to something of substance.
30 Emotions and passions are a question of
natural law. In turn, the latter is one of scientific knowledge.
31 Impressive truth will offend mediocrity.
32 Much of also Western culture is
ideological manipulation for the benefit of vested interests. Think of essences
of religion, offensive wars and “patriotism”, the Divine Right of kings,
repressive sexual morals, the position of women, class society, the belief in
witches, various ideas about genetic quality, egalitarianism and eugenics, and
the new clothes of more than one emperor. To a major degree, my work is
violating the core taboo that prohibits saying all of this openly and
coherently, and applying it to concrete specimens.
33 Not even simple current examples will be
discussed openly, such as elsewhere-mentioned experts who prefer “their”
problems not to be solved because of the
Parkinson (employment) aspect. Within this scope the “disadvantaged industry”
does not like an efficient reduction of the number of “deprivileged”, whereas
in the juridical domain softness on (inter alia)
repeaters and hyper-complication are endemic. Both sectors influence the value
system accordingly: no eugenics, no “law and order”, “nurture” rather than
“nature”,…
34
Our natural faculties such as emotions, intelligence
and conscience will produce progress as a matter of course, from intelligent
self-interest and competition, unless these are frustrated by inimical or
stupid policies (censorship, rigidity, superstition,...) Freedom for the fittest
(of individuals, institutions, businesses, laws, traditions, habits, ideas,
ways of life,…) to survive plays an essential part. However, “fittest” in
practice often means “fittest as an instrument for wielding power”: those
groups, ways of life,… prevail which excel in fighting. Think of the
Spartan-Athenian war in Antiquity and Germany almost winning World War II. Too
often repression, taboo, censorship and violence were better instruments of
survival than rational argument for quite a long time…
35 The essential source of the decline of
education during the past decades is concessions to both postmodernism and
mediocrity. That is, one less and less emphasized the coherence of what is taught and the different levels of (genetic) quality of those to whom it is taught. What we need is more
systematic textbooks and more selection.
36 The law and justice have one primary
purpose: vigorously enforcing integrity. Second purpose: fostering the
efficiency of society.
37 The mere phenomenon of whistle-blowers to
be fired rather than decorated (and their having difficulty in finding a new
job) suffices to irrefutably demonstrate the radical moral corruption of
even modern Western establishment.
38 Essentially, political correctness is
conservatism: accepting most groups and their cultures as they are.
39 The object of science is the coherence
of phenomena.
40 Our leaders invested too much in myth,
ideological manipulation, troubled waters and “image” for making them
consistently side with enlightened values and purposes. This core of sociology
is consistently repressed.
41 They accept cruel survival of the
fittest in nature but loathe eugenics. They killed by the myriads: in wars, for
desertion, for offending the King, for stealing a bread, or by letting people
perish of hunger,… But they loathe euthanasia: killing for mercy.
42 Is it a mere coincidence that so many
current ideas – from postmodernism, relativism and modern art to “fundamental”
uncertainty in quantum mechanics – start from the thesis that the world is
basically “fuzzy”, while at the same time such point of view (troubled waters)
is a condition for the manipulative, indirect-disguised way of fighting reason
which since about a century succeeded that of violence, dogma and censorship?
43
If your argument on a vital question is irrefutable
you are considered a spoilsport in the round game in which everybody and every
interest should have an escape.
44 Evidently, many “experts” are looking for problems rather
than solutions in domains like education, crime, immigration, unemployment,
absenteeism, addiction et cetera. For otherwise they
would follow the examples of the few foreign countries that found better
solutions than one’s own as to one or more of the problems. Such “experts’”
hate of “simplification”, “abdominal sentiments” and “ready-made solutions”
points in a similar direction. Tabooing genetic causes of educational problems,
crime, addiction,… does so too, for studying them would solve much… Also
fitting in is the complex of relativism and politically correctly taking
everyone and every interest as they are. The latter even includes “crazy
quotations” of Heidegger, Foucault, Habermas, Merleau-Ponty and many other
“totems”, which never cause any outcry. (See elsewhere on this website.)
45 Apart from (unconscious) conspiracy, what could explain that
about everything in the “orthodoxy” points in the same (unenlightened)
direction: relativism, egalitarianism, “nurture” rather than “nature”, incoherent
art, philosophy and “progressive” education, emphasizing the here-and-now as
well as coincidence, softness on crime and the underclass, acceptance of man
and major interests as they are rather than criticizing them by reason and
rational values, anti-eugenics and the RU paradigm in general. (See relevant pages.) By generally relativizing reason and by
emphasizing the social dimension the establishment and the orthodoxy tend to
make power, position and habits of thought prevail on rational argument and
rational values. For similar immoral reasons one does not prefer human
destiny to be defined by coherent and deterministic laws of nature rather than
chance and free will. On the contrary, both as a scientist and as a
conscientious individual I want that everything can in principle be critically scrutinized,
up to and including my culture and destiny.
46 For
a rational substantiation of the essence of my standpoints in 45 see my page Paradigm in Default (and
also the pages 1.2 through 1.4 on this website), and realize
further that my general sociological theory explains many more phenomena from
some (self-evident) starting points than any orthodoxy does. (Compare in
particular pages 2.1 and 2.5 on this website.)
47 In at least
one respect free markets fail: in present-day’s US, “the best and the
brightest” can earn much more in various financial and juridical occupations
(to which they flock massively) than in fundamental research, which is much
more productive for mankind. Among the best-paid are the fund managers, whose
average investment result appears to under-perform as compared with the stock
indices…
48 The
orthodox, the politically correct and the powerful will often use unethical
methods of fighting dissidents, such as hushing them up or passing them over
for appointments, and they taboo various subjects and opinions. Well, why would
their ideas and purposes be of a higher level than their methods in
controversy?
49 At
long last I found an argument that implies some degree of excuse for those who
easily acquiesce in the idea that there is neither a hereafter nor any deep
(non-local) coherence in evolution and human destiny. That is, the relevant
people are – possibly justly – so much disappointed by life, society and
history that they lost any confidence in the world order. Then they cannot be
blamed much for seeking consolation in the idea: “I didn’t really miss much in
life, for it is a damned mess in the first place, without progress,
without enduring happiness, without justice and without wisdom or good
intentions hidden in the world order. Everything goes wrong eventually;
therefore, my disappointments are not so important. We are all definitely dead
in the long run; let me be happy that my enemies are too…”
50 A
special instance of 49 is in the domain of sex: many people miss very much
there (by the mere scarcity of attractive men and women and the primitiveness of
the relevant “market” which, by the way, are repressed subjects) and react in
the “sour grapes” way of 49, that is, by devaluing sexuality at all: “lower
instincts”, “sin”, “superficial pleasures”,…
51 The
ideas at the background of the following seven theses or catchwords have an
essential thing in common. That is, the theses etc.: (a)
genetically, all people are of an equal value, (b) comprehensive education, (c)
moral relativism, (d) repressive sexual morals, (e) political correctness, (f) you
yourself, subjectively, define what is the meaning of your life, (g) there has
not been much moral progress in the West since the Middle Ages. What’s common
to (a) through (g) is that they are so persistent in spite of their defying
logic, factual evidence or human well-being that hidden motives cannot but push
them.
52 Current intelligentsia became decadent by its no longer being
inspired by great ideas and values: neither by religion or impressive truth,
nor by the Enlightenment, progress or increasing the genetic and moral quality
of mankind. Such state of matters is highly compounded by science being
increasingly dependent on teamwork, networking and financial support by
instances in which mainstream thinking is prevalent. One among the results is the
conformism and inertia causing that intellectuals will not even be interested
in the hidden motives referred to in 51.
53 The
gap between politicians and the majority is not caused by “elitism” or by
Robert Michels’ “iron law of the oligarchy” (1911) but by the politicians being
highly led by vested interests such as veto groups and the like: big business,
organised labour, agricultural, medical, juridical and educational
establishments and other pressure groups. (Think of politically correct activists
who inflate concepts like “racism”.) These should have hardly any influence at
all in a democracy. They also constitute the basic cause why most solutions are
frustrated by what are actually minorities.
54 About everything that can be said without violating a taboo has already been
said. Hence the dullness of many disciplines like sociology and partly even
theoretical physics. The latter represses no less than five demonstrations of
the realistically four-dimensional nature of the universe and, by thus shutting
its eyes for the Copernican, got partly mired into a Ptolemaic mess of rather
unrewarding mathematical hyper-complication. Also, the circumstance that even
so many scientists and scholars are now engaged in a socio-intellectual round
game, rather than violating taboos and discovering new ideas and coherence,
joins with their mainly being busy with people – relations, networking,
organisations, groups and acting “politically”.
55 Anti-enlightened thinking concentrates on one thing: looking
for escapes from rational argument on both the philosophical and the practical
level.
56 We
should not favour eugenics and genetic engineering on man, performance ethics,
systematic substantial education, capital punishment for multi-offenders and
aggressive policies towards unenlightened cultures because we are “rightist”
but, on the contrary, because we side with progress and victims rather than
wrongdoers or evolutionary rearguards. Precisely because we are the opposite of
rightist we also gladly learned from history that techno-science can indeed
solve the problems of life.
57 Riesman’s now dominating other-directed personality made “the
others” into its God or identified itself with them. Small wonder that it
reacts to my criticism of many categories of “the others”, and notably the
establishment, like believers do to sacrilege.
58 Establishments
will prefer myth, fuzziness (troubled waters), uncertainty (anxiety), and
ideology (manipulation) to coherent models, rational argument (also on values
and purposes) and transparency simply because the first category facilitates
wielding irrational power whereas what belongs to the second category pricks
the items of the first, in addition to individual or collective prejudices and
nostalgia as to the jungle. This co-explains the antithesis of the earlier
discussed R(elativism)-U(ncertainty and C(oherence)-T(ransparency) paradigms.
Within the scope of myth and fuzziness the former paradigm also allows
ideologists to endlessly manipulate via nebulous concepts like “alienation”,
“the void”, the poly-interpretable or “subjective truth”.
59 As
emphasized on various other pages of this website, it is a strong
point of my general sociological theory that it explains so many phenomena from
so few and plausible starting points. That is, it explains anti-rationalist
philosophy, incoherent art, repressive sexual morals, anti-Semitism,
anti-intellectualistic educational reforms and various other phenomena from a
general tendency emanating from irrational vested interests to (unconsciously)
frustrate reason, rational values and openness also on the emotional level.
Some now oppose that a theory implying such “unconscious conspiracy” is a
bridge too far. However, as a response I call attention to the following:
Sociologists and others never had any difficulties with (a) the idea that
rulers not seldom (even consciously) kept people in ignorance, or churches
pushed guilt feelings or anxiety for hell, in order to foster obedience.
Neither had one a problem with (b) the thesis that authorities and ideologists
(unconsciously) used witches, Jews or others as scapegoats for their own
benefit, or with Machiavelli’s core position that rulers will manipulate their
subjects into believing their (the rulers’) intentions to be much more ethical
than they actually are. Also compare that (c) Mannheim, Gouldner and many other
sociologists accept the idea of ideologists’ main business to be exactly the
kind of (unconsciously) disguising bad intentions as good ones in similar ways
as my theory posits that educational reforms, sexual taboos or some kinds of
art are disguised ways of undermining reason. Further, (d) my
earlier example of the Greeks in Antiquity, who did not look for the “Gods on Mount
Olympus” during 8oo years, throws a remarkable light on unconscious
side-feelings about the truth and function of religion the then establishment
cannot but have had… Finally, (e), nationalism has been described as “an
instrument to make many exert themselves for the benefit of a few”. Well, then
the encouragement of nationalism by so many establishments cannot reasonably be
considered a coincidence rather than one more example of unconscious
“conspiracy”: ideological manipulation by hidden interests. All of this
means that explaining the above anti-rationalist philosophy et cetera as I did simply
amounts to one more – particularly rewarding! – specimen of the sociologist
calling on some instance pushing a disguised purpose (counteracting reason)
ideologically via indirect means such as this philosophy, “modern” art or
anti-intellectualistic education. That is, all of the above specimens
refer to unconscious “conspiracy” in behalf of powerful interests.
60 If
objective truth and values don’t exist, art cannot express them either, and
becomes pointless.
61 If you feel
anything objectively true or morally good not to be your ally, you have an
interest in their not existing: you tend to relativism.
62 Closely connected with the massive degradation of the last
half-century is radical egalitarianism. For what remains of value if multiple
offenders, problem youths and chronic anti-socials are deemed “to be of an
equal value” as their opposites?
63 John 3: 19 – 21 reads: “Some people avoid the light, and love
the ignorance, for that is the cloak that covers their ambitious desire”. What
Jesus said , when explaining this, was: “…This is the core condemnation. Light is
come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their
deeds were evil. For everyone that does evil hates the light, neither comes to
the light, less his deeds should be reproved … But, he that does truth, comes
to the light, that his deeds may be manifest,… that they are wrought in God.”
This quotation is still relevant today. That is, one recognizes those who
prefer the light in people who instinctively are attracted by the CT (coherence
and transparency) ambiance, whereas those shunning the light will intuitively
like the RU (relativism and uncertainty) complex of ideas. Those feeling little
sympathy for the utmost open coherence can be recognized in people who like
“fundamental uncertainty”, “nouvelle vague”, “the absurd” and coincidence. The
relevant antithesis is compounded by the circumstance that a fundamentally fuzzy
world strongly suggests our being released from all responsibilities and
exertions (as to moral questions, our abandoning prejudices, evolution,…):
things will develop in unexpected or absurd ways all the same, whatever you or
I do. Indeed, many are “happy that the world has no meaning” (from the title of
a book by J. van Heerden).
64 The
power of vested interests can be seen from the mere fact that not even
advertising tobacco products will be illegal, in spite of the World Health
Organization’s finding that 500 million people who live now will die by them.
65 Myth,
orthodoxy, political correctness, ideological manipulation, irrational power of
vested interests, image, convention, taboo and repression – as anti-enlightened
socio-cultural forces –, and also various instincts we inherited from the
jungle, have in common that they will be undermined or threatened by consistent
reason, integrity and transparency. They thrive on troubled waters:
uncertainty, chance, basic relativism and incoherence, anti-catharsis and
complicated bureaucratic, juridical and procedural mazes. Therefore, not a few
establishment ways of thinking will oppose both our above CT
(coherence-transparency) paradigm and my work in general. They prefer the RU
paradigm: relativism and fundamental fuzziness of the world, values and man,
the latter and society also being called basically “unmakable”. In rejecting
understandable models, even microphysics joins in the game of a fuzzy reality
or fundamentally troubled waters. Also relevant within this scope, there is an
inherent tendency in both individuals and cultures (societies) to repress their
own flaws and weaknesses, already for reasons of self-respect. Then, an
anti-enlightened bias surprises little, and neither does the circumstance that
radical criticism will be met like whistle-blowing, and also by mist-generating
contorted irrational philosophy and incoherent art. All of the above
anti-enlightened tendencies have in common that they unconsciously cooperate in
obstructing things to be brought from their places. Therefore, the very last
thing the relevant states of mind aim for is making coherent and transparent
models of reality and using them for solving the problems of life via science,
technology, enforcing integrity and discovering the meaning and purpose of
human destiny and a coherent world. Of course, most
“established” winners in the social rat race don’t want the partly not very
moral means to be exposed by which they won, via a consistently enlightened CT
ambiance. Rather, they will feel solidary with things as they are.
66 Every
hour brings me nearer to the moment at which I can
appeal to the machine against man.
67 It
is not the main task of the economy to meet the demand of housewives who have
shopping as their main hobby and whose purchases in department stores are on
impulse more often than not. Its main task is helping to solve man’s problems
of life and make progress possible: Genome Projects, atomic fusion, NASA,
genetic engineering, nanotechnology, parapsychological research,…
68 The
predominating socio-political evil is appeasing well-organized vocal
minorities.
69 It
is alleged by many that a large majority of Muslims is not inimical to
enlightened values. But how could one explain then that in 2008 26 Muslim countries
urged Dutch government to ban Geert Wilders’ anti-Mohammedanistic film Fitna? And what
about anti-religious publications in almost all Muslim states, and about the
fact that Wilders’ film apparently was not far from being the first of its kind
(for we seldom heard of a similar uproar before)?
70 A
relativist will be a conformist by that very fact. For not any relativist will
make sacrifices in confronting received wisdom if his own purported truth is
not inherently better than such wisdom.
71 Indeed
the elites in democratic counties are smarter and more gifted than the masses,
but, in matters of instinct, the former are probably so much biased by
(cartelised) vested interests and cultural tradition that in such matters the
masses will be wiser. Therefore, referendums on emotional and gut feeling
subjects such as immigration, education, crime fighting, euthanasia, eugenics
and the like will be preferable to leaving the relevant decisions to
well-organized dominating elites.
72 Current powerlessness of ideas is illustrated by our even
lacking any movement or school of thinking that combines the ideal of progress,
the core progressive idea of man taking his destiny in his own hands –
including vigorous attacks on anti-eugenics and anti-euthanasia – ,
rationalism, sexual freedom and the idea that life has a deep meaning that
implies good ultimately overcoming evil and unhappiness. Only such complex
of ideas can eventually substitute traditional religion.
73 Among others, Zygmund Bauman and John Gray (in Black Mass, 2007) hold
that Utopia and the Enlightenment were responsible for many totalitarian
phenomena. In actual fact, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler were not at all
interested in any Utopia (let alone enlightened ideas or the happiness of
others): they were interested in power. In order to get it,
they used concentration camps, murder, censorship and ideology that manipulated
many instincts and emotions, among which were some about Utopia, and others
about solidarity, workers, boldness or sacrifice. The same thing had been done
for ages by religion and by everybody who saw the relevance of hope and any
purpose of life at all. Actually, the establishments of all ages used to be
less than enthusiastic about enlightened ideas, which is also precisely the
reason why the Enlightenment-unfriendly position of Bauman, Gray etc. is the
rule rather than the exception these days and why many endeavours to push
enlightened ideas faltered. By the way: what about regions and cultures passed
over by the Enlightenment, such as in Africa and the Middle-East?
74 The
pessimists – from Céline to Bauman to Gray –, who don’t stop saying that
progress is elusory or impossible, produce mere self-fulfilling prophesies as
long as they do not look for concrete instances of anti-progressive
interests and forces and their explanations, and for means to overcome these
forces.
Actually, most among our intellectuals and leaders are primarily interested in
careers and consumption. This makes them feel best if they can see social and
other evils as so much “chaotic”, incoherent and therefore largely not
correctible that they can feel relieved from any obligation to do
something about them. Such attitude makes many “feel free”. That is,
the RU way of thinking helps much if you are rather satisfied and (for your
success in life) also co-dependent on manipulation and “the others”.
75 Moral corruption and inefficient complication in the
socio-political domain will end as soon as techno-science advances so much that
truly dependable lie-detection – inter alia, via brain
waves – applied to politicians and others becomes possible, so that voters know
who among those running for something important give precedence to the public
good rather than career and special interests.
76 Some feel that man is too irrational, morally deficient,
incoherent and “jungle-minded” for his living in an essentially enlightened
society in which science, integrity and an obligation to contribute to the
common good have the last word. My answer: precisely the gross imperfection
of most men enhances the urgency of such science etc. having the utmost
priority.
77 Establishment opposition against my work also originates from
the mere circumstance that such work is controversial because my
reason does not stop before tricky problems such as eugenics, radically
enforcing integrity, Third-World immigration, the bad faith of various vested
interests, the jungle mentality and/or inferiority of quite a lot of people,
and the concrete exposure of various ideological systems. Now the
establishment, just as the rulers and orthodoxies of the past, does not want
the controversial because it undermines “unity” around the centre
(which is precisely the establishment). Indeed, I endanger unity and
“solidarity”, which are major instruments of power, jointly with kindred
conformism.
78 The
primary psychological reason why I became a nonconformist is simple: some among
my emotions – about music, tragedy, sex, nature,… – are experienced by me as so
impressive that the opinions of other people, in comparison, are no longer very
important.
79 57
percent of the Dutch feel that tolerating the mass immigration of recent
decades has been the single most serious mistake Dutch authorities ever made in
history (Elsevier, electronic edition, March 26, 2008). Still,
nearly 100 % of media and authorities’ opinion expressions amount to quite the
opposite: we should welcome the (mostly Third-World) immigrants with positive
feelings. Actually, there are many more instances of socio-politically “correct”
ideas dominating public discussion while the majority is silent. For example,
think of incoherent (“modern”) art, softness on crime, euthanasia in various
countries, “racism”, “progressive” education etc. Generally, authorities and
(“quality”) media (and also the leaders of major organisations) will be
definitely more-than-average on the side of one among the two currently
dominating orthodoxies: political correctness and conservatism that lukewarmly
opposes it. How this systematic ideological imbalance can be
explained?
In order to do so, we should realise that such correctness and conservatism
have in common their core position of reserve or opposition with respect to
consistent rationalism and rational values, progress-mindedness and what we
earlier called the red thread of enlightenment in history. Now our explanation
is that orthodoxies such as mentioned are simply ideological instruments of
power. Small wonder then that the established will be more positive about
them than the general public! They (the established) also pre-eminently
represent (high-brow) culture, inclusive its major power-serving components,
which contain orthodoxies. Again, small wonder that anti-intellectualistic
(“progressive”) education, incoherent “modern” art, egalitarian opposition
against emphasizing IQ and genetic quality, relativism and conservative
anti-Enlightenment ideas are more popular with the intelligentsia and other
leading groups than with the general public that likes science, technology
and progress. Finally, the most relevant thing we could refer to in the above
context is our quotation from Orwell at the start of this page.
Remark:
Remind that there are two main “mechanisms” via which establishments (or
anti-enlightened interests) specifically use the orthodoxies at stake here. First, those
orthodoxies contrast with independent rational thought and values in a general
sense, and second, they humour various powerful special
interests. For example, relativism undermines truth and the very idea of
progress in the first place, whereas, say, the “disadvantaged industry” and the
juridical elites thrive on the idea that human genetic quality as well as
simple objective good and evil don’t truly exist. (How traditional conservatism
serves anti-reason and vested interests need not be elaborated.)
80 There is a vital common essence in myth and the traditional
right on the one side (the Church, nationalism, anti-rationalism, convention,…)
and a favourite idea of current anti-enlightened “progressive” orthodoxy on the
other side (viz. the thesis that the world, evolution, history, man and his
destiny are incoherent, chaotic, fundamentally uncertain). This common core is
their contrast with the original left: man taking his destiny in his own hands,
via science, rational values and also emotional openness. Another common
feature of them is their being optimum ideological instruments of power by
means of their implying troubled waters (ideological manipulation!) by their
position that human well-being cannot be substantially fostered by
enlightenment in a broad sense: by using the world’s coherence for
organising an objectively better future. Further note that
rejecting (also unconscious) intentions with socio-cultural
forces (“conspiracy theories”) fits in the above incoherence-mindedness. Partly
related to the above common essence there is another one with respect to
rational and emotional catharsis in the sense that the rational Aha-Erlebnis, sexual
experimenting and orgasm, and emotional openness, are all “enlightening” in contrasting
with both orthodoxies’ repression, (inner) censorship, taboos and conformism.
In this context, also think of a frequent observation on this website about
coherence and repression: that as to many problems their very core points will
be ignored because openly discussing them would bring too many things from
their places.
81 It
is a major result of my work on physics that the universe is four-dimensional
in a very realistic sense (see on internet (via Google) <Rietdijk-Putnam
argument> as well as page 6.1 of this website). Its realistic
dimensions are length, width, height and time. Now it is a plausible corollary
of such four-dimensional realism that natural law is
four-dimensional too, in the sense of its referring to occurrences (events,
processes) rather than three-dimensional objects. Note here that
processes are actually four-dimensional objects by their having a time
dimension. That is, in my model of the world natural law governs relations
among four-dimensional processes, their outcomes included, rather than
relations between three-dimensional objects. This, inter alia, has the
radical consequence that these outcomes too are far more governed by natural
law, and
less a coincidence, than in the traditional three-dimensional model
in which mutually independent “causal chains” often meet each other randomly rather
than that the results of the meetings also obey laws as such. This amounts
to the four-dimensional model of the world to be far more definite and coherent
(that is, governed by natural law also as to the results of processes such as
evolutions) than in the current three-dimensional picture in which we see much
“macro-coincidence”.
The above model of reality indeed joins with my socio-philosophical ideas too,
because it is an essence thereof that (1) rational laws and coherence rather
than coincidence and uncertainty define what happens, and (2) as to “the great
things”, such as macro-developments and values, the world is neither fuzzy nor
subjective. All of this means that my comprehensive work supports the CT
paradigm
as against the RU one. Compare pages 1.1 through 1.4 of this website.
82 The
adherents of the RU spiritual climate – relativism, fundamental uncertainty,
incoherence of life, no progress, no meaning,… – are not only wrong on the
level of reason but should also be blamed as to their moral and emotional intuition.
That is, the latter should have caused them to experience moral indignation and
emotional antipathy with respect to the idea that Gulags and the Nazi’s were
not objectively wrong. Also, such intuition should never have
accepted that neither our lives and destiny nor literature have a meaning and
show coherent lines. It should also have felt that softness on crime, on
massive Third-World immigration and on the degradation of education is either
cruel or inimical to progress and the status of human quality. Finally, mere
intuition should have taught one that an ethics containing beyond all reason
that sexual expression is wrong in most cases prejudices happiness.
83 Everyone knows that politicians will run with the hare and
hound with the dogs (even more than in the past). The source of this is that
many “cartelised” interests will compromise because they need each other.
Jointly, they constitute establishments. Even labour and capital, churches and
atheists are now mutually much more kind than before. This tolerance is
generally positive but its major drawback is conformism, superficiality and
hushing up what is “controversial” and might harm solidarity and “unity”. This
is the more so because, far beyond politics, this “peacefulness” pervades
all social thinking, including the scientific. As a consequence,
exposing explanations and theories are now virtually “repressed” in sociology.
Every argument or model is very “other-directed” and particularly ignores or
relativizes manipulative ideology. Just as formerly some holy Supreme Being,
now the great We censors out most ideas that could prejudice components of the
great Solidarity (establishment, orthodoxy,…). Comprehensive acceptance and
kindred egalitarianism now go so far that it is not done to be negative about
not only races but also specific groups, cultures, religions, the genetic
qualities of individuals, the underclass or the lowly skilled. Moral
discrimination as to groups is on the verge of taboo. Probably it would even be
against the law to publicly deplore that fertility in Africa and the
Middle-East surpasses that in Europe. Further it is well-nigh taboo if local
average IQ’s and value systems are blamed for much of Third-World misery and
poverty. Fundamental criticism of a host of subjects became virtually taboo
in the current “correct” West.
84 The
four-dimensional nature of physical laws may very well imply that such laws not
only inter-relate “small things to small things” but also “great things to
other great things”. (Mind that four-dimensionality implies retroactive
influences as an additional degree of freedom for nature.) Not only, say, two
electric charges could be connected but also different stages of the biological
evolution, or my destiny and the spiritual climate in my psyche. Within the
scope of such kind of “macro-feedback” natural laws may substitute religion
that works with “sorcery” and the irrational in order to “handle destiny”.
85 Modern man is inundated with unstructured information and
impressions. One among the results is superficiality in which thorough
criticism and coherent theories yield to opportunism, direct impression, image
and presentation. Explanations, say, of sexually repressive morals or about
interests hidden behind ideology (think of anti-intellectualism in educational
reforms, “modern” art, immigration policy,…) do not fit in the general climate
of ad hoc action, adjustment, other-directedness and relativism. The
incoherent collages of Robert Rauschenberg’s goats and tyres, and the “ideas”
said to be represented by them, postmodernism, and sports results, get far more
attention than such explanations, also from the intelligentsia. They are
also far less dangerous… In this way Ortega y Gasset’s mass man
now dominates the “elites” too. (See his The Rebellion of the
Masses,
1930.)
86 The
right to strike outlived its usefulness many years. It now amounts to legalised
extortion and is a major source of inflation. Arbitration is a better solution
(cf. Switzerland).
87 I
would agree with very high incomes for business leaders if they really came
about via free markets in quality. However, if we compare the selection of such
leaders and that of political elites, there is much similarity because
political parties are virtually businesses competing for votes by producing
goods and services such as a prosperous economy, safety, good education,… Well,
now we see that the actual “competition” in the political domain will fail in
bringing the best to the top: networking, “position”, Old-Boys networks and the
like prevail more often than not. Then my question is: “What about the `free
market’ in business leaders?” One more point: in a truly free market,
whistle-blowers would be in great demand because they will save millions.
Still, we all know how practice is: the Old Boys prevail. Moreover, there is no
evidence of options and other additional remunerations to work. We even see
perverse effects appearing here as regards the incentives to business leaders:
most mergers and takeovers afterwards appear to be mistakes but, still,
relevant managers will earn very much by them. Again, extra income does not
work very productively.
88 The
core feature of current intellectual life is that by far most of it is a
noncommittal round game. Within this scope, my work is tacitly hated, not for
purported errors, but from a climate in which even attempts are lacking
to explain, inter alia, (former) sexual taboos, political correctness,
or “abstract art” (which is called “shocking” and “innovative”, and purports
“to express a new vision of reality”, without bringing whatever thing from its
place). That is, my work is hated for its breaking ranks with the game-players
and for its taking Machiavelli seriously in its explanations amounting so often
to an exposure of our leaders and ideologists. Contrary to the Cultural
Supplements and cult authors such work has consequences. It does not
leave room for passing to the order of the day.
89 Almost universally, people will seek and derive “last-resort”
support and hope from irrational religion, tradition and their belonging to a
particular social group and its (sub)culture. As James Burnham observed, they
often die for religion, King and Country, not for reason, science or rational
values. They will not derive such support etc. from coherent and super-local
fundamental laws of the universe, that also govern results and destinies, as
discussed on this page and website. That is, from four-dimensional natural laws
within the scope of reason and science. One among the radical steps implied by
my work is now that I intent to change this by substituting irrational and
“man-made” religion and mainstays (with a socio-collective basis) by a
scientific one emphasizing the concept of coherence, that of our destinies
included.
This means: no dogma, no “sorcery”, no irrational authority, no arbitrary
decisions (by God or any community), no belief in any non-hypothetical
sense. In my thinking they are substituted by a scientific basis of the
essential pronouncement: “(God), Who does not forsake the work of His hands”.
Such basis is research into non-local natural laws that manage results and
destinies too, which four-dimensional laws may very well do, as well as into
near-death experiences and the paranormal. I myself do not trust on cultures,
tradition, “the others” and their irrational prejudices, or on sorcery, but on
deep laws of nature which we started to study for some while now. Traditional
religion is no more than a preliminary stage of such study. More often than
not, I experience “the others” and their “truths” as immoral and
anxiety-generating rather than comforting, also in their evading rational
arguments and violating rational values. That is, in the domain of ultimate
hope the CT ambiance rather than the RU one is my basis. It may be said that
any uncertainty or fuzziness in whatever process means latitude for unnecessary
evil and tragedy. Such uncertainty and fuzziness contrast with a meaningful
world.
(Of course, the readiness to die Burnham referred to can also be based on the
emotional warmth generated in a community jointly siding with the above
science-associated values rather than the traditional ones.)
90 Opposition against explanations and theories, as given on
this website, that expose major sectors of the establishment – for example by implying
that educational reforms are unconsciously intended to undermine reason
(anti-intellectualism), just as relativism and incoherent art, and by
explaining the sexual taboos as an emotional equivalent of censorship – is
highly an opposition against my undermining the authority of “the group” and
its leaders. That is, against my undermining “unity” and “solidarity”. Hardly
anyone realizes that the relevant “inviolability” of the great We, in its
conforming tendency and unconscious intentions and actions, is simply a
secularised historical continuation of the inviolability and massive conforming
tendencies of God and religion. People want to belong, to the We, to “the
others” (other-directedness), to the right-minded people, just as formerly they
wanted to belong to the Church, to “the party of God”. Those at the centre (the
establishment) profit, just as the leaders did from people belonging to “our
country”. As to myself, I only belong to the party of well-reasoned truth
and its coherence and beauty, that at the same time intensely move me, and
which inspire me to the hypothesis that they ultimately “do not forsake the
work of their hands”.
91 Conservatives will say that enlightenment and the original
left strive after remaking the world according to “abstract principles” that
contrast with human nature. In my opinion, they rather fight very concrete
injustice and unreason, such as the treatment of whistle-blowers, women or
homosexuals, the procreation of anti-socials and the prohibition of euthanasia.
Indeed, afterwards the progress-minded often see also coherence (“abstract
principles”) in both good and evil.
92 The
establishment prefers anxiety and meekness among the general public to the latter’s
experiencing power over the (social) environment. Therefore, it prefers
appeasing both evil and power to catharsis and exposure. Also the distrust of
whistle-blowers fits in this, just as the general attitude towards my work.
93 Apart from being contrary to my five demonstrations of
four-dimensional reality, and inconsistent with my four proofs of the existence
of retroactive influences (that implement Einstein’s hidden variable), the idea
of a fundamentally uncertain, coincidental and fuzzy world is also morally
and emotionally unacceptable. For it leaves latitude for raffling
tragedies that just as well could have failed to appear and which by that very
fact do not serve any purpose or necessity. Also, any free will of my neighbour
may imply a tragedy for me that just as well could have stayed away and,
therefore, is unnecessary and senseless. (Compare Hitler’s “free will” and the
Holocaust.) All true uncertainty leaves room for suffering and evil
that cannot even be excused by their being unavoidable or having a function,
say, in
evolution, “in the direction of the great drama” on our way to
happiness, quality, the precious and overcoming evil. Only in the latter model
tragedy can have meaning, also as a consequence of the apparent circumstance that
such happiness, quality etc. cannot be produced by sorcery but need extensive
evolutionary processes.
94 In
the realistically four-dimensional world there are fundamentally more coherence
and less coincidence than in the current three-dimensional model. For in the
first case there is an interaction between causes and effects in a
micro-process because retroactive influences from the existing future complete
causal influences from the past. This means that to some degree causes may
reckon with (be influenced or coordinated by) effects or results so that the
latter could be more “intelligent” and less arbitrary. Note here that in
quantum-mechanics the Heisenberg uncertainty margins constitute a latitude for
retroactive influences from the future – that is, non-causal influences – to
co-define a relevant process.
95 Most people so much hate to be defined by deterministic
natural laws that they prefer uncertainty and coincidence to a coherent and
meaningful world. On the other hand, I myself have a horror of both the
unreliable and the arbitrary.
96 Paraphrasing Jean François Revel we can say: “The objective
good, and an objectively high quality of some people, cannot but exist because
it is so extraordinary clear what their opposites are.”
97 Egalitarianism, political correctness and multiculturalism
are among the many socio-philosophical phenomena that, just as relativism,
incoherent art, repression of sexuality, …, can be explained from the
comprehensive source of anti-enlightenment (anti-red thread mentality). For (a)
egalitarianism is directly related to relativism (as to quality and virtue),
(b) political correctness devalues the ethical dimension by humouring
low-quality groups (as regards crime, addiction, genes, IQ, …), whereas (c)
multiculturalism will reject the idea that unenlightened cultures and societies
are inferior to the (in principle) enlightened Western one.
98 The
dead-end situation in which most modern thinking got stuck is to a great extent
its putting first and foremost the world of experience of the individual rather than
the “scientific coherence of nature and the world”. Think of existentialism and
postmodernism, of a preoccupation with the here-and-now and of “focussing
attention on the pupil” in education rather than on the coherently ordered
material. All of this corresponds to an anti-rational attitude to life. Also
think of the spirit of the sixties of the 20th century that, it is
true, contributed much to sexual liberation but was also related to the immoral
Me mentality, egoism and aggression (Jack Kerouac, Norman Mailer, Jan
Cremer,… )
99 The
orthodox will hush up dissidents in order to exclude vital points from rational
discussion. Such exclusion is a general weapon of what’s wrong. It also
manifests itself in dogma, taboo, subjectivist philosophy and relativism,
incoherent art, disinterest in understandable models in microphysics, deeming
unenlightened Third-World cultures to be of an equal value as compared to that
of Galileo and Voltaire, and considering values and the problems of life to be
outside the realm of science.
100 God
is coherence.
101 Many seek an identity from their ethnicity, their country,
tradition, social group or religion. These are arbitrary bases of it as
compared with taking position in the strife of truth and untruth, good and
evil.
102 Earlier I explained that the thinking part of the nation
integrated into the establishment from mid-20th century on,
academics becoming officials, experts, advisers and members of committees, and
expressing what the right-minded people feel. However, intellectuals deserted
from their post-Galilean position as leaders in ideas for another reason too.
(We see such desertion from the mere cultural and book-review supplements of
the high-brow press.) For since relativism and the abandonment of coherent
models in both theoretical physics and sociology, since the “progressive”
1960s, the here-and-now and “modern art”, the intelligentsia has no more any
coherent enlightening, science-associated and hope-inspiring ideas or messages
at all.
It paraphrases spiritual and emotional fashions, from existentialism, Michel
Foucault and postmodernism to “the unbearable lightness of being” and a
pervasive atmosphere of subjectivism and meaninglessness. The essence
of erstwhile intelligentsia has gone: standing for an
enlightened, coherent and enduring reason for our existence. The “class of
ideas” withered because ideas are “out” in the first place. In a way, this is
also pure superficiality in a tide of (media) impressions, extraversion and
other-directedness. Also social evils will be ascribed to
coincidence rather than coherent mentalities and unconscious purposes.
103 Jews in the US have an IQ that averages 115 (The Bell
Curve,
by Herrnstein and Murray). They received half of the US Nobel prizes in the
last century. In spite of not being Jewish I do not at all feel discriminated
by these facts.
· On the contrary, I even
feel that it would be good for mankind and in the spirit of evolution and
progress if these people would outbreed those causing the average IQ in various
countries to be under 80 (see Lynn and Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of
Nations).
This is far from happening. Also “internally” in the West, lowly educated (low
IQ) groups will outbreed the highly educated.
· Hardly anybody speaks
about the circumstance that medical progress and welfare counteract survival of
the fittest in the biological sense and as to IQ etc. Without compensation by
genetic engineering or genetic quality selection this causes our gene pool to deteriorate
because IQ and other human qualities are partly based on genes.
· Currently dominating
egalitarianism and “correctness” tabooed even discussion of the above; it is
the single most serious betrayal of the idea of progress by “progressives” that
they joined in this inner censorship. They subscribed to the chutzpah that
moral, intellectual and emotional human qualities are about the only ones that
are not hereditary to a substantial degree. They implicitly propagated an
egalitarian and relativistic ideology to the effect that the offspring of
hooligans, problem youths and anti-socials is about of an equal average quality
as that of, say, those Jews mentioned. The idea of genetic quality – the core
of that of progress – became taboo in this ideology that flies in the face of
both science and common sense.
· Only the “disadvantaged
industry” and a politics of rancour thrive on this climate, which is also
nihilistic and conservative, deifying man as he is by seeing him as
“inviolable”.
· By the way, did you
realize that the Nazi’s were unrivalled in anti-eugenics by their mere
persecution of the Jews?
104 Is
it a coincidence that all fashionable schools of thought compete in how to
limit the domain of applicability and/or the authority of reason and rational
argument? Compare:
· Subjectivism – the idea
that “subjective truth” is more than mere opinion – is also anti-rational (and
popular at the same time) because it is a hiding-place from reason to what’s
untrue or immoral. Think of prejudice.
· Dogmatism and cultivating
the absurd evidently contrast with reason.
· Relativism does so too
because if objective truth and values do not exist every argument can be
purported to have been “invalidated” by denying possible starting points or logical
steps of it to be objectively correct. (Think of extra-rational “premises”
ascribed to all reasoning.) In short, relativism implies that rational argument
is not decisive as to many conclusions.
· The idea of
fundamental uncertainty and coincidence, as widely held in
quantum mechanics and beyond, implies that some natural processes evade the
application of reason.
· Neo-positivism – in not even
being interested in coherent models, inter alia, in microphysics, and
neither in values, but only in measurement results and corresponding formulas –
excludes a host of things from reason and understanding, leaving them to
arbitrary choice, such as how the world functions and what is good or evil.
· The reductionist
brand of rationalism – related to neo-positivism – denies that
nonlocal influences exist (in spite of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, and other evidence) and, therefore, accepts much macro-chaos and
coincidence that then is beyond the realm of scientific models and coherence.
105 Apart from earlier discussed arguments demonstrating
anti-enlightened ways of thinking – such as relativism, Heidegger’s
existentialism, incoherent art, softness on crime and anti-eugenics – to be not
only fraudulent but “conspiratorial” too, there is an important additional one.
This once more corroborates that such thinking comes from unconscious
intentions corresponding to disguised interests rather than its appearance to
be a “coincidence” or simple error (let alone its anyhow being plausible). Such
argument amounts to the mere circumstance that such ways of thinking stubbornly
persist in spite of the easiness of refuting them. For this shows that there
cannot be but hidden interests behind them. Some specimens of such
easiness are a) moral relativism implies the Holocaust to be not inherently
wrong but only wrong from a perspective as to which we are free to choose, b)
we gave various devastating quotations from Heidegger and kindred spirits, c)
the champions of “modern art” never came farther in basing the meaning of the
incoherence than its purported capacity of giving “another view on reality” or
its being “revolutionary”, d) as to genetic causes of crime, poverty,
educational problems and the like the “politically correct” do not ask the
question why health, our nervous system and many among our inclinations and
preferences are hereditarily defined to a large degree, but IQ, compassion and
integrity would suddenly be completely based on “nurture”. In this context,
also think of egalitarianism and anti-eugenics. Also think of a hazy concept
like “privacy” as a reason for limiting the powers of law enforcing
authorities. The above is compounded by the fact that many unorthodox ideas and
arguments will be hushed up or taboo, which amounts to “conspiracy” by that
very fact.
(For the rest, nobody has any difficulty with the idea that, say, bureaucrats
unconsciously tend to favour more complicated procedures and rules because this
means more work.)
106 The
downfall of sociology we (and I.L. Horowitz, S. Andreski, A. Zijderveld,…)
referred to earlier can easily be seen from its mere ignoring vital problems
such as discussed in 102, 104 and 105 above. Such failure fits in social
science more generally no longer being engaged in coherent theories and models
of social evolution. To some extent, compare the situation in microphysics (no
understandable models) and the catastrophe of philosophy (subjectivism,
relativism, formalism, no coherent models). The downfall in question is closely
connected with sociology’s rejecting the idea of unconscious motives
(“conspiracies”) that correspond to interests. Such motives, of course, have an
integrating tendency as, among other things, is clearly seen from my theory
about the red thread in history and its ideologically disguised
counter-movements.
107 As I earlier
discussed, many people so much experience happiness and success as a matter of
comparison with others that they need drawbacks and failure with respect to
them for their own well-being. So much so that even successful Utopia’s do not
seem desirable to them: a core basis of their life is the hope of outdoing
others – if necessary by not always integer means – and Utopia and progress
do not help in this respect. We can see all of this massively around us. This
situation may be the single most important reason why Utopia is not popular,
even apart from the many examples from history in which it indeed became a
disaster (because it was not based on rational values and a good economy).
Actually, instincts stemming from the jungle, that concentrate around strife,
competition and outdoing others need phenomena like
failure, unhappiness and, therefore, evil to a large degree. (Novels about
happiness and virtue simply don’t sell.) It may even be that this is the single
most important reason for emotional aversion towards my work. For the
latter is characterized by a systematic striving after transparency and
coherence in order to fight unhappiness, evil and coincidence, a striving after
progress and evolution. It is consistent with the above that so many not only
object to Utopia and the idea of progress but also to the ideas of the
makability of society and eugenics. The idea of a (partial) “organisation of
happiness” even meets with downright abhorrence on the emotional level. (Hardly
anyone does object to me like “You are wrong, but we hope you are right against
all appearance!”) Mongols, tragedy and death “belong to life” though, of
course, they are less appreciated if they knock on one’s own door… In the same
vein, many against all evidence deny that man is much happier in modern
countries than in developing ones. (For example, see R. Veenhoven, Conditions of Happiness, 1984.)
Within the above scope, we see much tolerance of evil: multi-offenders who are
released time and again, criminal foreigners who are not even deported,
restrictions with respect to finding the truth in crime-fighting, and softness
on addiction, squatters and social abuses in general. Many still want
latitude for our inheritance from primitive era’s, for evil and the law of the
jungle.
Human immorality could never be so powerful if not many would have an interest in it, also
unconsciously and as to group attitudes, ideology and political action. Of
course, this vital problem too is ignored by social science…
108 As
a practical compromise, I would not too much object to the continuation of the
current political situation in which countries are virtually governed by a
partly meritocratic elite (of, say, 300 people) that rather roughly respects
the outcome of elections, on the conditions that:
a) Violation of integrity is banned about as radically as in the Victorian age
open homosexuality was banned from the public market square. To this end,
simplicity, straightforwardness, transparency and the moral dimension should
also dominate the juridical domain, no complicated loopholes and delaying
tactics that detract from the efficiency of such ban being ever accepted. Lie
detection, particularly applied to whole groups, should help to find clues in
“suspected situations”.
b) All means of material pressure by interest groups such as the right to
strike should be abolished; arbitration in the spirit of the public interest
should substitute them.
c) The purpose of advancing progress should have a similar precedence as winning
a war; fundamental research should absorb 3 rather than .3 percent of GNP and
R&D 10 percent rather than 3, both of them not being left to market forces
(that are too much short-term-oriented), in contrast with most of the rest of
the economy.
d) The idea of progress should also dominate the domain of procreation:
obligatory sterilization of problem cases such as long-time underclass people,
medically guided embryo selection, a largely free market in reproductive cells
and genetic engineering applied to man.
It is a difficulty with the above program that, for the time being, the
relevant elites will not be prepared to foster the cultural transformation
needed for implementing a) through d). But it should be an ideal and the
essence of the program of a truly progressive political party. Possibly, say,
China or Singapore will someday take the lead in the genetic part of the above.
109 Referring to cruel and primitive situations in Third-world
areas many will say: “Our own Western civilization witnessed millennia of
similar stages”. However, there is one major difference. That is, where in the
Third world were Socrates, Euclid, Archimedes, Dante, Machiavelli, Luther,
Spinoza, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein?
110 Earlier (inter alia, in The Scientifization of Culture, Section 29)
I discussed that, as an instrument of power and manipulation, the idea is
propagated that there is an almost inherent antithesis as to (sexual) lust on
the one side and the elevated and our conscience on the other. Such purported
antithesis contributed much to rather massive feelings of guilt, sin and shame
(and, of course, to meekness and conformism). Logically, this state of matters
also contributes much to the apparent aversion of many to my preferring the
C(oherence)T(ransparency) paradigm to the now dominating
R(elativism)U(ncertainty) one. Transparency is threatening to those feeling
guilty or ashamed. My attitude is radically different: paradise is to me a
world in which any striving, anxiety, faculty, action et cetera, of any
individual, is coherently and scientifically correctly stored in the Great
Machines and coordinated on the Screens. This in order that the Apparatuses can
also – by subtle techno-science about genes, brain waves and other information
– help managing the functions (jobs), love and other relations, and
evolutionary priorities of any individual in a way optimising total well-being,
also in the long run. Such purpose of an ultimate substitution (as an
instrument of evolution) of the jungle by intelligence and rational ethic is
also a basis of my trusting the world-in-progress to have a meaning.
The
above as a major cause of unenlightened attitudes, of course, is compounded by
what we earlier discussed about very many people who derive much of their
satisfaction in life from the adversity of others.
111 I
understand why the culturally correct don’t like schmaltzy pop songs, Demis
Rousos, Vicky Leandros and Rika Zarai: the primary aesthetic emotions to which
these should appeal often withered away with them, inter alia, because
they will often be already frustrated on the sexual level (because of the
scarcity of attractive people), and were also “mutilated” by the kind of
snobbery of the highbrow culture, or became incoherent with emotionally
“adjusted” people.
112 One
current symptom of decadence is that socio-cultural elites got more interest in
people than in large-scale coherence and major evolutions. Networking, interest
groups, sport championships, VIP’s and “lifestyle” draw much more attention
than progress, the genetic quality of mankind, improving the moral level of
socio-political action, scientific study of a possible hereafter and the
meaning of life. Hardly anybody still feels mankind to be on its way towards
something very worth-while. Frankly, I am inclined to believe that my work is
not ignored by many because I am a nonconformist but rather because the ad
hoc
way of thinking of our intelligentsia corresponds to so narrow a view that it
is not interested in the first place in explaining sexual
taboos and anti-intellectualistic educational reforms, a coherent social
theory, scientific study of parapsychology or the question why nobody publicly
criticizes incoherent art and why almost everyone honours taboos more generally
(say, about eugenics and the difference of various races as to their average
IQ).
113 Currently, lie-detectors are about 85 percent reliable. Now I
suggest that everyone running for parliament should be tested by such detector
as to his/her answer to the question: “Does the common good have precedence
over special interests if you have to vote on any question?” Experts should
complete the test by controlled answers to more specific points, such as: “I
want the truth to prevail if a scandal threatens to prejudice my party or any
other interest group with which I am associated”, or “Progress arouses more
emotion in me than the Olympics or whatever championship”. In principle, my
suggestion may effect that 85 percent of representatives will be correctly
screened as to a major vice: non-ethical priority of vested interests.
Objections
to the above proposal – and the fact that it hasn’t been made earlier – fit in
a far more general anti-enlightened mentality to the effect that there is not
even much enthusiasm as regards the vigorous enforcement of integrity. Compare
“privacy”, the right to silence of a defendant, the mere notion of “unlawfully
obtained evidence”,…
114 Our
authorities do not only betray potential victims by softness on crime but also
by a legislation on discrimination whose reform is long overdue. Such reform
should allow selective measures that help to make finding the truth and the
enforcement of integrity more efficient, as well as making life difficult for
those sponging on the community. That is, if some ethnic, religious or other
groups cause definitely more problems (as to crime, welfare-dependency,…) than
average, the authorities should not, for juridical reasons, have to refrain
from special controls and obligations with respect to them in order to increase
the efficiency of fighting the relevant problems. Think of fingerprints, IQ
tests, immigration stops,…
In
The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) it is thoroughly
demonstrated that the mere datum of IQ defines very many other characteristics
of an individual that are relevant as to, say, the desirability of his/her
immigration into any country.
Much
opposition against my proposed non-egalitarian law reforms comes from three
sources: (1) an efficient management of problem groups will cost jobs in the
“disadvantaged industry”, (2) emphasizing IQ and genes does so too and in
addition is against egalitarian ideology, and (3) complication, also by many
“rights”, is good for lawyers and for those in a position of paying them for
finding loopholes and the like. A climate giving much precedence to enforcing
integrity is less attractive to them…
115 Vigorously
cracking down on crime, annoyance, anti-socials and the like is no more a
“rightist” policy than fighting aggression and deceit more generally.
116 It
is a core aspect of our socio-cultural theory that anti-reason and, more
generally, anti-red thread forces will currently appear in a disguised,
indirect form. It makes sense to mention some variants of how this occurs in
the sexual domain, where formerly very explicit taboos and repressions
called the tune. We see:
· Scarcity of attractive
people is simply repressed as a fact of life, just as the primitiveness of the
love market that is still mainly based on chance meetings.
· Generally, a lack of
openness (the hiding of feelings), jointly with the above two factors, causes
much frustration and contributes to making the sex market much less suitable
than that in other services. Internet dating and disco’s help, but have serious
drawbacks for many subtle and articulate minds, such as loud music and a
worldly atmosphere of superficiality and playing games, none of which
encourages serious human communication. For many, looking for a love partner is
associated with an outgoing and superficial ambiance, which is partly
summarised by the deadly conclusion of many that explicitly looking for a
mate does not particularly help.
· Very revealing is the
ambiance of vulgar “humour” around sex that demonstrates the underdeveloped
state of so many people’s sexual feelings.
· It is generally
repressed that for very many elderly people sex is a mess because of the mere
unattractiveness of their partners.
· In all, subtle
impediments to free sexual markets and experiment, though much less
overwhelming than formerly, continue to parallel those on the intellectual
level.
117 After we, in 116, discussed major specimens of unconscious or
disguised anti-red thread tendencies in the domain of emotions, we now do
something similar as to the third one among the three major sectors of the red
thread (reason, emotions, and conscience). Just as with the two other
components of the red thread (or sectors of progress), social interest groups
and hidden remains of our jungle-attuned instincts are at the basis of the
relevant reactions.
Major anti-enlightened phenomena or symptoms in the moral domain:
· The core dogma in our
society to the effect that there is hardly any major (unconscious) bad faith in
modern establishments (no unconscious “conspiracies”).
· Two specimens of almost
open and only half unconscious siding with evil of such powers that be are (1)
various rights of defendants that tend to frustrate finding the truth, and (2)
much opposition against forcing criminal, anti-social or sponging foreigners
out of the country.
· We can see the
“jungle-associated” source of phenomenon (1) from the rhetorical question after
one criticizes those rights: “You would be happy with them if you yourself
would be accused”. Well, if accused, what could be the benefit for me as an
honest citizen if I am allowed to keep mum or if some of the evidence may be
deemed “unlawfully obtained”? Actually, the rhetoric question calls on my
jungle instincts for which honesty is irrelevant but only the powers of my
adversaries count, whereas, for me, “all fighting options are open”.
· One more underhand
variant of value-undermining tendencies is the idea that human quality is a
subjective, relative or not very important concept. Apart from being part of
egalitarianism and the “nurture” idea, such opinion is also a licence for
mediocrity, laziness and other shortcomings.
118 The repression of “nature” as compared with “nurture” in
current thinking about the Third World and immigration from it.
From IQ and the Wealth of Nations by R. Lynn and T.
Vanhanen (2002) a simple and consistent hypothesis can be derived that explains
much. Two major results of the book are that there is a significant positive
correlation between the average IQ in 81 countries and their level of economic
(and related) development, and that Third-world people generally have lower
IQ’s than First-world ones. By such results, in coherence with the circumstance
that intelligence is at least half a question of genes, we can explain why:
· In the US non-Whites
(except most Asian immigrants) continue to have clearly lower average IQ’s than
Whites, in spite of their living there for generations.
· Third-world immigrants
in Western countries will show more welfare dependence, lower educational
results and higher crime rates (correlated with IQ) than autochthonous people.
· Remedial measures of
the “nurture” kind as to immigrants, the underclass and social mobility, as
well as development aid, only work to a degree, as we also see around us.
· In spite of the evident
negative consequences of Third-world immigration for relevant countries, the
Left and welfare apparatuses continue to foster it. In view of the rather
undisputed fact that politicians and organisations will act in their own
interest,
the simplest and most coherent hypothesis is that those proponents expect more
votes and more clients, respectively, from the immigration of “disadvantaged”.
From such self-interested position they deem opponents “racists who discriminate
certain groups”. Also, in some countries such as the US employers expect lower
wages from immigration.
119 Summary
on educational policy.
· Restore sound education
by teaching the subjects in a systematic way with the aid of
coherent and transparent books with exercise material and that are stripped of
frills. Books that contain the complete material for all entrance and final
examinations of schools that correspond to various intellectual and
techno-practical levels (which examinations should be uniform for the whole
country, except for various centres of excellence). No more “projects”, papers,
individual approaches and the time-consuming discovery by the pupil himself of
Napoleon or the thesis of Pythagoras.
· Enforce silence and
discipline in the classroom.
· No more managers,
“educational experts”, paperwork, frequent meetings and no more complicated
statements about students’ advances. Mere simple reports with old-fashioned
marks should suffice.
· Back to basics also in
these respects, which is the opposite of conservative but stimulates
intellectual and practical performance and delayed gratification, which are the
main sources of progress.
In a nutshell, there are four problems in education: low-IQ students, lazy
students, educational theorists who largely ignore genes as to the IQ’s, and
managers who in vain keep trying to make result in a success the nurture-based
experiments of the theorists. Jointly, they devise ever more new problems and
reforms that create jobs for themselves.
120 On
a genetic-lag phenomenon.
In their IQ and the Wealth of Nations Lynn and Vanhanen ask
themselves what the average IQ in a country should be (as a minimum) in order
that a modern economy and social organization can be managed. In my remembrance
they feel the answer to be about 85. A related problem is that, according as
Western or other societies advance technologically and otherwise, ever more
skilled employees and ever less unskilled ones are needed. Of course, here is a
problem. For example, with the average genes of the underclass no modern
advanced socio-economic fabric could continue to function. Then the problem
arises: as general progress and subtlety advance, more gifted people will be
needed, whereas these are basically in short supply. We see one more argument
for eugenics and genetic engineering! Don’t forget that a society and culture
largely advance by the cumulative experience, thinking and discoveries of
genetic elites. Then eventually a problem will emerge of keeping up with this
by “the genetic rank and file”. Is artificial intelligence a solution? Also as
to managers, politicians and other “generalists”?
121 An
additional ideological phenomenon fits in with our general theory about
indirect and unconscious anti-enlightened (anti-red thread) socio-cultural
tendencies. That is, emphasizing coincidence, uncertainty and incoherence, also
as to social evils – that are deemed far from unconscious conspiracies but, on
the contrary, are purported to be mere unintended concomitants of good
intentions and policies, “local errors” or other “industrial accidents” –, is
one more specimen of the relevant unconscious indirect unenlightened
tendencies. This is also for a reason additional to what we discussed earlier.
For such coincidence, incoherence and local-error nature discharge one from
any obligation of doing something substantial about the evil in question and
from at all bringing something important from its place. Indeed, doing so would
be either impossible or senseless because the results would be highly
unreliable. The mentality in question means opting for defeatism.
122 The
“unity and solidarity” that are often associated with religion, tradition,
patriotism and the like will be welcomed by many. However, they are positive only
if they amount to giving precedence to the common good over special interests.
In real life, however, “unity” more often than not amounts to not rocking
the
boat,
that is, accepting influential people and major vested interests as they are,
which is simply conformism.
123 The
allocation of funds by capitalism can be a caricature: the Spanish soccer club Real
Madrid
can spend more in a year than comprehensive research into atomic fusion (400 million
and 250 million euro, respectively). If international authorities did not
interfere, the ratio would be even more irrational. Generally, our “free”
economic system has a strong bias towards the short term, just as free
individuals have.
124 Irrefutable
evidence that the juridical way of thinking and practice can be miles away from
justice and sound intelligence:
“Process [against Radovan Karadzic] fraught with juridical pitfalls may take
years” (headline in NRC Handelsblad, 30 July 2008).
As soon as problems are merely juridical, not corresponding to moral substance,
our suspicion should be aroused. Something similar holds in the economic
domain: if a “problem” there is merely financial (say, about liquidity) but
does not refer to real value, production or its capacity, we should ask
ourselves whether it may be a mock problem. For example, it is irresponsible to
let a business go bankrupt because of mere liquidity problems if its net worth
is positive but, say, all savers at a time want their money back. By such
misrule much of the Depression has been caused. The printing press could have
prevented much misery caused by orthodox economics. The latter is also
irrational as to a major point by preferring high interest rates that slow down
the economy to wage(-price) controls in order to fight inflation. (Wage controls
are much more easy to effect in practice than price controls on myriad products
and services.)
Some
more light on orthodox capitalism: When students
protested on Tien An Men Square in China’s capital (1990), it was uncertain for
some weeks whether boss Deng could find troops willing to suppress the protest
militarily. Rumours that he could caused capitalist Hong Kong shares to rise,
rumours to the effect that he could not made them decline. Investors
preferred
“stability”.
125 Truth and its coherence are more interesting than people.
Please react! See our
Discussion Page