Beyond the Brainwashing

Wim Rietdijk, D.Sci.

1. In essence, there is only one social core problem: how far the establishment is willing to enforce integrity, rational values and efficiency to have a lead over vested interests such as "veto groups"?
      A case in point: In NRC Handelsblad of 4/10/01 I read two vital things:
a) In Switzerland strikes are forbidden; labour disputes are settled by arbitration.
b) It is reported that a controller with the Dutch Railways found that an engine-driver works about 3 hours a day; the other 5 he is waiting or travelling to his next train. For work rules and schedules are very complicated because the unions enforced the relevant staff to have much variation as regards the trajectories of the trains they man. Their work may not be monotonous...
      Most revealing aspect: No uproar arose, the veto power of the unions (and of many more groups) continued and the Dutch parliament did nothing; not even though the service of Dutch Railways was a mess for years, inter alia, because of "shortage of employees". The government dismissed the directors...
      Now I have an essential pychological problem: what about the conscience and the lack of inner autonomy of people who continue to feel solidary with an establishment and parliament tolerating the above?
      I would feel ashamed if such kind of people would not hate my work.

2. An uproar indeed arose among all German political parties and many organizations as the Dutch adopted a law permitting euthanasia in some cases; German reactions ranged from "absolutely disgusting" to "moral destruction". At the same time almost 70 percent of the Germans is positive as to euthanasia. (NRC Handelsblad, 4/12/01.)
      I fear that social thought became so superficial and conformed that our intelligentsia does not even sense the vital common aspect of points 1. and 2., which is the very essence of socio-moral problems.

3. From 1. and 2. two vital points of our socio-cultural theory are once more corroborated. First, the one about (half-conscious) conspiracy is demonstrated by 1.: what else than a conspiracy of silence, and a taboo, about corruption and humouring vested interests such as union power do we see from it? This example can massively be completed, as we see elsewhere on this website.
      From 2. we see a corroboration of another of my points: that the establisment can be much less than representative of the people as to substantial matters, in spite of "demoracy". Ideology and vested interest collusion are responsible.
      More generally, we see an establishment "conspiracy" as to, or consistent bias towards, condoning evil: the regime of Saddam Houssein, fraudulent immigrants, recidivists, cartels, union power to enforce inefficiency, the firing or frustration of whistle-blowers, lawyers thriving on complicated laws and rules, golden handshakes, lavish stock option plans, corrupted Third-World regimes that receive "help", etc. etc. All of this because well-organised interest groups are humoured and conscience is silenced in a massive, that is, unconsciously conspiratory way. What else than ("unconsciously") conspiratory is it if all coherent protests against such corruption of democracy, ethics and reason are hushed up as a matter of socio-cultural climate?!
      For the rest, what is a conspiracy if the tacit agreement as to not persistently expose and make impossible by law the practices in the Dutch Railways - and the treatment of whistle-blowers, the perverse role of technicalities in law enforcement and many other abuses - is no (unconscious) conspiracy? Is it not a conspiracy if the establishment consistently refuses to crack down on abuses in which well-organized interests are humoured at the cost of efficiency and the public? This website abounds of examples...
      Further, what is collusion of interest groups if it is not a de facto conspiracy?
      And, moreover, is it not an unconscious conspiracy if everyone in Antiquity was silent about slavery, or later about witches fraudulently weighing an ounce? And what about a more recent age when almost unanimously negative standpoints were mimicked about abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia?

4. Just as The Bell Curve of Murray and Herrnstein (1994), IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (Praeger, 2002) is a major blow for political correctness, egalitarianism and the "nurture" case. Also see on Internet a review of the book by J. Philippe Rushdon. It appeared in Personal and Individual Differences of Oct. 2001 and is entitled The Bigger Bell Curve: Intelligence, National Achievement and the Global Economy.
      The central result of the authors is that, for 81 countries all over the world of which the average IQ of the population is known, there is a correlation of +0.76 of their mean national IQ and their per capita Gross Domestic Product for 1998. Correspondingly, IQ and growth rates too correlate strongly for almost two centuries. Additionally, low average IQ appears to correspond to more crime, unemployment, welfare dependency, and single motherhood. The study mentions considerable national differences in average intelligence level: North-East Asia 104, Europe, North America and Australia 98, South and South-West Asia 87, South-East Asia and the Pacific Islands 86, Latin America and the Caribbian 85 (Argentina 96, Jamaica 72), and Africa 70.
      Because intelligence is largely genetically defined ("persistent" in the course of time), much becomes clear from the book about development problems, including corruption and inefficiency. Moreover, the book should be our main compass as regards immigration policy.

5. It is revealing of the extent to which philosophy will be narrowly associated with prevalent ideology and vested interests that "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" got little attention as the pre-eminent rational value. What's more: after Jeremy Bentham first introduced the principle (1789), his followers in the 19th century did not even realise that the then Victorian morals and cult of "my country" (war included) were flying in the face of happiness.
      Rejecting or playing down such core rational value is simply a special case of the attitude of establishments towards the red thread (enlightenment as to reason, ethics and emotions) in general.

6. A major ideological weapon of the established and the in-crowds is the idea that most social problems are "complicated" and "cannot easily be solved". For this suggests such in-crowds and their vast bureaucracies, networks, expertise and complex laws and procedures to be indispensable. In actual fact, any country can easily solve most of its problems by simply looking abroad: there are only few problems that remained unsolved all over the world. For immigration, look at Denmark, and for efficiently solving crimes at Northrhine-Westphalia. For fighting crime in general, mayor Giuliani of New York set an example. For good university education look at Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, for a good education of manuel workers, at Germany. For lowering absenteeism and incapacity for work compare, say, Denmark with The Netherlands, and so on.
      The real reason why so many problems remain unsolved is not their "difficulty" but the refusal of the authorities and parliaments to crack down on interest groups that object to or sabotage efficient solutions. This within the scope of the collusion of interests that characterizes our establishment at all. (E.g., compare elsewhere on this website: in thirty years not a single question has been asked in Dutch parliament about informal cartels.) Our governments are tolerating labour contracts implying inefficient work rules, lawyers thriving on complication, (rich) farmers getting much subsidy, lax controls on absenteeism etc. etc. Public demoralization and "relativism" are so radical that such kind of things do not cause an outcry in the media. (It is revealing that not even opposition parties will confront governments with better solutions abroad: they too want to humour unions, business, farmers, pharmacists, those abusing welfare, and any other large or well-organized group.)
      What is indeed very complicated is the "bureaucratese" and other verbal exertion with which governments, unions etc. will argue that the problems are "difficult" and "ready-made solutions will not do", and will turn against any "simplistic" approach.
      Neither aquired rights, nor collective agreements, and neither strikes nor any other physical action of opponents should ever be allowed to counteract decisions by parliament.

Conclusion: our establishments are not very interested in solving problems but much more in humouring major interests; otherwise they would indeed have looked around in search of the best solutions abroad. The above also explains why referenda can do much good and should prevail on all veto groups and laws on which these could base their sabotage of democratic decisions and the common good.

7. An essential immobilising force in society is that, just as much emotion and aggression of the average public is drained by sports, something similar occurs with the intelligentsia: think of obscure non-information around concepts like "being", "emptiness", "the absurd", "alienation", language as an abstraction, artistic "experiment", endlessly extending concepts like "racism" and "stigmatization",...

8. Many ask themselves: "What is the origin of the hatred of Bin Laden, Islamic Iran and many Muslims against the modern West?"
Well, my question is: "What is the source of the hatred of so many in the West with respect to modern civilization?" Think of sentiments against rationalism, the Promethean, the scientifization of our model of man, and freeer and more open sexuality. Also think of Heidegger, the Greens and Harry Mulisch' book The Discovery of Heaven, "progressive" Third-World sympathies, anti-intellectualistic ("progressive") educational reforms, Horkheimer and Adorno's book The dialectic of the Enlightenment etc.
      I feel the common basis of "fundamentalist", Western-conservative and pseudo-progressive aversion to modern rationalistic and Promethean culture is what is extensively discussed in my work as anti-red thread mentality. It can essentially be explained from a social analogue of what neurosis is in the individual psyche. Viz. the neurotic psyche reacts to frustrations with counter-productive mechanisms, such as repression, projection, evasion via taboos, aggression against the wrong objects, perverse outlets for dammed-up longings, guilt feelings and mutually incompatible strivings because repression fosters emotional incoherence. In the social domain, additionally, such pathologic tendencies are often exploited and, therefore, more widespread. Think of projection on leaders, manipulation of dammed-up strivings and uncounscious feelings,... Many orthodoxies, nationalism, conventions and especially solidarities originate(d) this way. For realise that "solidarity" is the pre-eminent defense mechanism against frustration in social history. Personal solidarity and those around major interests in society (kings, churches, the labour class, the fatherland, tradition, "the others" such as in other-directedness etc.). Ideology and the establishment will have an interest in pushing many solidarities (centered around themselves).
      Now it seems to me that in the first place it is various "pathological solidarities" that are at the basis of the above anti-modern hatred: modern Western culture is - rightly - considered to undermine most conventional solidarities around traditions, nations, nature, religion, myth and "we" in general. It is far from accidental that technology and the modern way of life undermined the "community" idea, religion and nationalism (and ideology in general to some extent). This explains much hatred. The solidarities of the radical Muslims differ only partially from those cherished by Western traditionalists, conservatives and egalitarian solidarists. All are endangered by modern developments. (Also compare how many try to regain solidarity around national teams, Olympic winners etc.)
      As to Western opponents (of the modern West): current secularized religion (to a great extent: Riesman's other-directedness) - in which man as he actually is and the group (largely as it historically developed, vested interests included) became God and the ultimate myth - has indeed little good to expect from modern evolution that, inter alia, demystifies man. Neither does modernity do much positive to the central mechanism of power: human unawakenedness and dependence. For technology, reduction of the accidental in modern welfare states, and sexual freedom, do much in reducing in particular such dependence.
      Generally, the "exploited neuroses of inconsistences, repressions, incoherence and defensive myth", discussed in the ante-penultimate paragraph, have much to fear from modern awakening and enlightening developments, simply for the same reasons why more specificaly orthodox religion, nationalism and ideology have: modernity, rationalism, transparency etc. undermine myth and counteract repression and incoherence. (Also compare the page Why Many Repress this Site, especially points 3. - 7.; our Site even more than "the modernism of the West" in general contrasts with both conforming social solidarity and the repressions, projections, taboos and mutually incompatible strivings inherent to the social neurosis described above.)

Conclusion: Power elites not specializing in making money, ideologists, and those seeking solidarity as defense mechanism or major satisfaction in life, just as those exploiting or experiencing collective neuroses, all have reasons to hate modernity. At that, all those thriving on corruption and abuse, material or ideological, have reasons for not liking more rationalism, efficiency and transparency and red-thread evolution at all, as it progressed most in the modern West.

9. There is a typical, exampling basis of increasing degradation: our leaders feel no intense, moral and emotional disgust of immigrants throwing their refuse over the balcony fence and allowing their children to play outdoors until late in the evening.
      Generally, how can a civilization have a sound moral basis if even most intellectuals are so decadent that they are more interested in the Olympics than in the enforcement of integrity, efficiency and transparency of power and selection mechanisms by the authorities?
      In essence, our society lacks the primacy of the moral dimension in mutually coordinating or subordinating interests. Hence veto groups, the fate of whistle-blowers, cartels, drug-related annoyance, union blackmail by means of strikes, development aid to corrupt countries, golden handshakes, lavish option arrangements, genetic rearguards procreating problem cases indefinitely, and integrity not even in law enforcement prevailing on everything else.

10. The absence of any substantial opposition in the modern West, apart from the "reactionary" one discussed in 8. above, is strikingly illustrated by the circumstance that such opposition - also think of Greens, anti-globalists, radical environmentalists, neo-Marxists, peace movement, Third-World enthousiasts and rightists - is even more anti-red thread than mainstream thinking. Accordingly, at least the "leftists" among them are cherished by most media.
      On the other hand, opposition that really shocks parts of the establishment will be frustrated by the very basis of a "free" press: that advertisers or minorities of subscribers will discontinue advertising or subscribing if a medium publishes what indeed really shocks them. This means a sieve with respect to true nonconformism. Hence a climate of mass idols and trend-setters, stars and bestsellers, fashion, consensus, networking and other-directedness rather than substantial intellectual discussion.

11. The intelligentsia of the 20th century has not been very original. Most of its energy has been drained by problems like socialism and "experimental art". In recent decades, even sports (and, of course, career-as-such) seemed to interest the relevant people more than moral problems and progress. Rauschenberg and Warhol evoked more discussion among them than Ingmar Bergman, near-death experiences or the genetic quality of man... Most intellectuals too became consumers of the here and now and the accidental rather than being on their way and thinking about coherence. Or they were integrated in organiations that in turn are integrated in society...

12. I feel the following circumstances to be of a telling mutual coherence:
1) In my mind and work there are three unusual - but by no means illogical - positive associations: (a) one between sex and the sublime or elevated, (b) the idea of progress, via genetic quality, is associated with eugenics, (c) (super-)rationalism, via even nonlocal coherence, may bridge a gap separating it from religion. Most people rather see contrasts here.
2) Positively associating and integrating the relevant concepts or experiences make man innerly strong and straightforward, and they also join with the general idea of "the red thread" or enlightenment emphasized in my work.
3) Our "orthodoxy" does not like the red thread much and at the same time not only rejects "my" associations of 1) but even pushes philosophies and kinds of art that breathe a spirit quite opposite to them, e.g., cultivating incoherence, the troubled and uncertainty at all.
      Could it be that the orthodoxy fosters manipulability while the ambiance of 1) does the opposite, and that this is precisely the basic reason why a) my work is hated by the orthodoxy and b) the latter likes the spirit of 3)?

13. Is anyone pointing to an abuse? Dismiss the whistle-blower.
      Does a physicist or parapsychologist suggest a deep meaning of the world? Speak endlessly about "being", "nothingness" and "uncertainty".
      Are some calling from the depth? Proclaim a cycle wheel on a stool to be art.
      Are millions in sexual famine? Say them that the cause of their problems is in themselves.

14. First, I felt compassion with the victims;
      then, indignation over the moral state of those responsible for the abuse;
      finally - and most strongly - I felt contempt for those who not only did nothing but not even said anything, and looked the other way if a lonely soul spoke up.

15. Medieval Church and other rulers unconsciously fostered anxiety (especially for hell) and guilt feelings (in particular relevant to sex), and they thrived on them. Why couldn't such things happen now?
      Isn't there anxiety any more, even of violating taboos or being "unpopular"? Do establishment and conformism no longer thrive on it, inter alia by people seeking refuge in "belonging" of various kinds?
      And what about guilt feelings and the Third-World and immigration lobbies?
      Among the causes of such anxiety:
1) A cult of "uncertainty", "coincidence", meaninglessness, chaos and relativism that undermine the ideas of progress, hope and any moral order and justice.
2) An inefficient sex market based on chance meetings, hiding of wishes and playing social games.
3) Not really cracking down on crime, inconvenience by noise or by addicted and anti-socials.
4) Also, there are many "natural" sources of anxiety too that, as in the past, tend to make people flock around conforming "we-institutions".

16. "He [historian H.W. von der Dunk, in his De verdwijnende hemel] makes the salient observation that, in our days, individualism couples with a new conformism: `Substituting the old bonds we see a kind of massive adjustment, an increased dependence on the others, the environment, public opinion, as to behaviour and ways of thinking'" (Paul Scheffer in NRC Hb., Dec. 8, 2000).
      Let's elaborate, and explain.
      Conformism indeed is so massive that we seldom see any prominent figure publicly express something controversial, about eugenics, underclasses, "racism", modern art or genetic causes of crime... Very, very coincidental.
      In line with both the above and with former sexual taboos we see an aversion to emotional catharsis: to heartfelt cries, "abdominal sentiments", putting the cat among the pigeons, moral indignation substituting "realism",... As with the sex taboos, "uncontrolled emotions" are intuitively felt to be as dangerous to socio-cultural straitjackets in general as "uncontrolled" intellectual communication. Indeed, relativism, the poly-interpretable and the kind of "shocking experiments" purported to be performed by modern art are less inimical to troubled waters than, say, an emerging Internet love market, rationalism applied to our value system, and this Website...
      Actually, the anti-catharsis "way of being" - even manifest in most intellectuals' aversion to the Schlager kind of music (Demis Rousos, Vicky Leandros,...) - is an "emotional segment" of anti-red-thread ideology. It also joins with systematically evading the core of things as, e.g., illustrated in Why Many Repress this Site, point 7. Being not to the point is a way of life of modern officious censorship (and even much more so in most non-Western cultures as well as, e.g., in electoral campaigns). It is a common feature of by far most highbrow Cultural Supplements, political propaganda, modern art, existentialism, postmodernism, philosophy "about language", and sports, that actually they are pointless, "much ado about nothing", just as Chinese etiquette was in the times of Confucius. They drain human emotions, intellectual energy, creativity and the craving for status into directions optimally harmless to the status quo.
      Still, the most conformistic of all conformisms is that virtually nobody opposes the idea that they are a coincidence rather than unconscious conspiracies to humour vested interests and anti-enlightenment. At the same time, the influential thrive on the longing for "solidarity" with which most people respond to frustrations, anxiety and boredom, but sociology seems not to be interested in relevant concrete explanations, e.g., within the scope of red-thread theory...

17. There is a link between conformism and structural dishonesty in society. Both partly refer to politicians, intellectuals and other leaders not saying things because they feel them to be true but because they want to serve some purpose: their careers, some interest group, an impression they want to make,... Other-directedness got so pervasive that most leaders became primarily "performers", media (wo)men. Carefully humouring powerful interests, networking, adjusting, building an image, manipulating obscure bureaucracies, lobbying behind the scenes,... The truth and rational values still remain secondary, as in the times of Louis XIV and the Kaiser. And conformism continues to play its essential part. Hardly one suggests any idea about lie-detection...

18. An irrefutable demonstration of our establishment's lack of integrity is embodied by its consistently ignoring the very concept of human genetic quality, in spite of massive scientific results contradicting current ideology of egalitarianism and social environmentalism as to intelligence, crime, qualities of character, addiction and the like. We mention a mere four sources of the relevant results:
1) R. Herrnstein and Ch. Murray: The Bell Curve (1994);
2) R. Lynn and T. Vanhanen: IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002);
3) J.P. Rushton: Race, Evolution and Behavior (1995);
4) Two extensive researches by S.A. Mednick and R. Cloninger, respectively, about crime and heridity (for details see my The Scientifization of Culture, p. 293).
      The relevant results are so radical - devastating for the "nurture" position versus the "nature" one, present-day anti-"racism" and the entire cult of "inviolable" man and egalitarianism - that ignoring them implies moral and intellectual fraud to the utmost by current mainstream ideology, e.g., as to these items:
a) Crime and recidivists are considered merely from the social point of view, not the genetic;
b) With education, genetic factors are virtually neglected;
c) A similar thing occurs as to the strong correlations between genetically based low IQ, crime, unemployment and other negative characteristics;
d) The variation as to average IQ of classes and races is ignored.
      Aside from the above lack of integrity, our establishment is immoral in being prepared to put up with the serious practical consequences (sterility, much suffering) of approaching issues like underclasses, underdeveloped peoples, crime and educational and other problem cases merely from the social side.

19. I suggest two major improvements of the political process and system:
a) With any proposed measure, subsidy, entitlement,... from which benefits a certain group (say, a wage increase) the cost of it to the average taxpayer or consumer should be clearly mentioned too.
b) Elections should no longer refer to people but only to alternative policies the various parties propose. That is, the voters can choose pro, anti and neutral as to concrete measures and priorities derived from programs (and that, say, are summed up on Internet), and they can attribute relative weights. Then, the computer should decide what party harmonizes best with such preferences and give the vote accordingly. At the next election, it should be presented too what concrete appropriate measures were taken by parties in power and how various parties voted at relevant occasions. This would indicate how serious they were in doing what they said to intend at the previous election. It would be incorporated in the computer's later processing measures in question and priorities as truly supported by various parties.
      In this way, political parties become competitors in satisfying voters on concrete points rather than creating images and associations, proposing vague measures, manipulating on tv and spending much money for mere publicity.

20. Some feel me to be rightist, simply because of my emphasizing genetic quality and eugenics and my hating permissiveness with respect to anti-socials, problem youths etcetera and egalitarian anti-intellectualistic education. Actually, I do not like "progressiveness" and liberals precisely because they betrayed the core enlightened values of progress (including as to genetic quality), rationalism and striving after a clear model of a transparent world. Current "leftism" simply institutionalized to the interest ideology of the rearguards industry, blended with Green anti-Promethean tendencies, sympathy for anti-rationalistic Third-World cultures and the obscurantism of harmless "experimental" art. That is, it became (often soft) rightism itself. In accepting "man as he is" it is even more conservative than such rightism.
      The decisive shifting to the right of "progressiveness" is marked by Dialektik der Aufklärung by T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer (1947).
      Various others blame me for "being consistently on the side of the individual" and having mere contempt for the community and the social dimension. Indeed I expressed much criticism as to establishments, most "solidarisms", dominating ideologies, convention and conformism that all tend to subordinate reason and rational values to less rational traditions and interests or the cultural lore of the group. I confronted all of the latter with the independent reason of autonomous personalities and a rejection of conformism. On the other hand, my optimizing-of-happiness ethics, pro-eugenics, anti-"rights" standpoints as to crime-fighting or addiction and my general position as to privacy, enforcing integrity, and radical priority to the common good over all other interests, refute the above reproach. In my opinion, progress, efficiency, enforcing rational values and "the happiness of great numbers" should prevail over individual objections or private interests. I only hate irrational communities that tend to conformism.
      The mere circumstance that also the above antitheses hardly ever enter public discussion is revealing as to the prevailing conformism.

21. A booklet by Jean Baudrillard - The Vital Illusion (Columbia Univ. Press, 2000) - examples a radically nihilistic and postmodern wave of resistance against the positive. Listen to his concluding passage:
"For if we come face to face with a world that is incomprehensible and problematic, it may be clear what we have to do: we should make such world even more incomprehensible, even more mysterious." (translation by me from the Dutch edition, C.W.R.). Also we read (Dutch edition, p. 54):
"We should join battle with the extermination of evil, of death, of the illusion, against this Perfect Crime, in order to preserve the criminal imperfection of the world."
      How could we explain the massive cult of rebellion against coherence, enlightened values, transparency and skilful management towards progress of which Baudrillard is one of the "totems"?
      Well, all of this may also be a rearguard action of "the original sin", in the sense that many spoiled, relativistic and hyper-individualistic modern men are fed up with civilization as such. For realize that primitive man, coming from the jungle in which aggressive fight for survival ("of the fittest") was the ultimate "good" and purpose, had to make many concessions in subsequent civilization - the New Testament, compassion, integrity, cooperation, delayed gratification,... - that seriously reduced the relevant egoism and agression. That is, civilization to a considerable extent turned against such "original sin". Now it may very well be that Baudrillard and other nihilistic anti-enlighteners express what many of the above spoiled egoists feel: mostly well-to-do intellectuals, they instinctively feel independent and are little inclined to make concessions to civilization and the care for others, after the long process of undermining Christian and humanistic values in preceding decades. They simply want latitude for their "original sin".
      Realize that the above explanation of the popularity of radical nihilism is complementary to my earlier one of the (mostly more moderate) anti-enlightened tendencies in general, which will stem from vested interests and veiled manipulation instinctively fearing reason, rational values and awakened, less manipulable emotions.

22. Point 21. above fits into the more comprehensive picture of what we may call the "basic perversion" in our cultural frame. This refers to a fraudulent, artificial, rift or antithesis in the human psyche to which has been contributed by so diverse sources as Christianity, Freud (psychoanalysis), the (hippie) counterculture and postmodernists like Baudrillard. Viz. consider:
a) Baudrillards "campaign" against transparency and for preserving "criminal imperfection";
b) Christianity's and much traditional aversion to (sexual) lust;
c) The thesis of Freud and psychoanlysis that much sexual restraint is necessary for culture at all. Think of "sublimation" and a "super-ego" that should be rather fundamentally inimical to lust; some "death wish" would be so too;
d) The countercultural idea that "performance ethic" and sexuality somehow contrast;
e) On the other hand, compare the basis of both my own philosophy and psyche, to the effect that a positive association appears of happiness (including sexual arousal and satisfaction), beauty, the sublime and our conscience, clarity, transparence and reason, progress, culture and performance.
      Our conclusion is that both vested interests and the "original sin" referred to in 21. go far in "mutilating" the coherence of such associations and the human psyche.
      Note that the attitudes of e) and a) through d), respectively, transcend being mere association complexes, for e) has reason and consistency on its side, as it integrates man's strivings (happiness), conscience (optimizing one's neighbour's happiness too) and culture (also making merely sense in optimizing happiness and reducing unhappiness). Compare that the point of view of a) through d) neither explains the sense or use of culture (still happiness?) nor that of conscience (again happiness of one's fellow man?). If culture and conscience indeed derive their meaning and use from optimizing happiness, any "inherent" distrust of lust = happiness would be irrational. And if they don't serve happiness, what use at all can they be rationally argued then to have?
      Also note in the above context that performance fits in the ideas of both culture and progress aimed at increasing happiness. (Of course, a superficial here-and-now and happy-go-lucky way of life indeed contrasts with performance ethic; it is revealing that such way of life is often associated with or preferred by hippies and Bohemians.)
      Finally, a negative attitude with respect to sex (mostly that of others) may also stem from a basic, "jungle"-like, competition of genes as to procreation. (Again compare the "original sin" of 21.; the anti-sex "ethic" may be an outstanding manifestation of it. That is, of thwarting evolutionary competitors. Still, part of it made the competition more fair.)

23. Elaborating 22., various points are relevant:
1) The mere scarcity of attractive people and the primitive love market cause sexual lust (happiness, the morally good,...) to be often associated with frustration and other negative emotions (humiliation, shame, many don'ts,...). Something very fundamental in the human psyche is harmed by this, viz. the natural association between happiness and the positive.
2) Point 1) contributes to explaining why in most cultures sex is "mutilated": twisted and subject to many taboos, anxieties and guilt feelings.
3) An analogy exists between a) a negative attitute to lust (happiness) and b) a positive or excusing one to evil (that generates unhappiness). The latter attitude may almost completely stem from ideological manipulation by vested interests but, on the other hand, it is often so "fundamental" that the suspicion arises of a deeper emotional mechanism [comparable to that of 1); also think of sadism]. This might again be the nostalgia for the "original sin" and the jungle referred to in 21. Such phenomenon may also explain the massive perversion, obscurity, incoherence and interest in rather inferior people that characterize so many modern novels. Also, it could contribute to the abysmally unenlightened state of most modern philosophy in which happiness, progress, coherence and the difference between good and evil are almost unknown concepts.
      Actually, the relevant basic rifts in coherently contrasting the "complexes" of the positive and the negative can be seen as an extension to the socio-collective domain of private mental illnesses (which, in this case, will also be stimulated and exploited by social interests).

24. Let's give some socio-culturally important specimens of clearly humouring evil on a rather basic emotional level:
1) socio-philosophical relativism;
2) the idea that "all men have equal value";
3) rejecting the toppling of cruel regimes (Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Grenada, Haity,...);
4) objecting to abolishing many technicalities and rights of defendants that often frustrate finding the truth ("privacy", "unlawfully obtained evidence",...);
5) objecting to interviewing (groups of) politicians with the aid of a lie-detector;
6) anti-eugenics and repression of the qualitative genetic differences between men;
7) softness on crime, anti-socials and the like:
8) little readiness to enforce integrity by all means disposable;
9) as a rule, a negative attitude towards whistle-blowers;
10) massive appeasement of interest groups and "realism" in foreign and domestic policy.

25. Points 20. through 24. (and also Sect. 29 of The Scientifization of Culture, on psychological coherence) all refer to the basic order of values, and in our psyche. We continue:
      Why a leftist point of view - keywords: progress, rationalism, techno-science and dynamics, distrust of convention, pro-euthanasia, sexual freedom, a rational value system,... - could not exactly harmonize with loathing moral and genetic rearguards as well as backward anti-rationalistic Third-World cultures?! That is, with law and order, eugenics, performance and delayed gratification that foster progress, sense of duty and coherent behaviour, also in an education emphasizing meritocratic selection and intelligence?
      Nowadays we see an endemic perverse mutual association of an "enlightened" attitude and softness on crime, underclasses, backward cultures and immigration from them, and incoherent art. That is, we see softness on rational values and human quality with "progressives". So much so that opposition to degradation and inferiority is now virtually monopolized by reactionaries hating sexual freedom, euthanasia and enlightened ethic, and who cultivate nationalism, convention and myth.
      It is precisely the above incoherence and inconsistency of values that frustrates truly progressive dynamics and the fight against abuses in modern Western society, which largely lacks moral and emotional vitality. In this context, one should not hate underclasses, incoherent art and fundamentalism because they threaten "our nation and its traditions" but because they contrast with the spirit of Voltaire, Einstein and the Promethean. Also, one cannot consistently fight evil on the basis of myth.
      Finally, the inconsistency at stake goes far into the direction of suggesting that abuses are mere "coincidence" rather than being inherent to our interest-moulded state of mind. In any case those who thrive on them have major interests in the continuation of the above "mess of values and emotions". Would they be too stupid for ideologically encouraging it?

26. By virtually ignoring the moral category - such as bad faith and unconscious manipulation - sociology condemned itself to sterility as to coherent explanations and models of essential socio-cultural processes. For ethics relates to purposes and major coherent ways of behaviour just as the "positivistic" side of social science will do to more "local" phenomena and actions. E.g., how could one explain censorship, the ancien régime, many persecutions, the British corn laws, Victorian morality, conformism and political correctness as a mentality, and veiledly ideologically promoting interests, if one refrains from the idea of unconscious conspiracy and lying in order to serve egoism? To all appearance, it is repression of, or mere disinterest in, good and evil that caused sociologists to ignore the above ethical problems and concomitant explanations.

27. Most literary authors and socio-cultural thinkers profess pessimism or have negative judgments about man and society. But they are inconsistent to the extreme:
First, they shun detailed rational criticism, thus fostering resignation and defeatism;
Second, they (relativistically or chaos-mindedly) undermine the moral category, thus leaving adjustment to or "solidarity" with the others as the only mainstay in life;
Third, they humour most taboos, with the exception of those on sex: race and IQ, eugenics, genes and crime, unconscious "conspirational" and ideological bad faith of interest groups, "rights of the accused" and technicalities that counteract finding the truth,...;
Fourth, they refrain from advancing positive ideas about improving man and society.
      The upshot is that our "avant-garde" and intelligentsia simply humour the status quo in a veiled way. As priests of (post)modernity they say little original, endlessly repeating themselves "correctly" about uncertainty, relativism, genetic equality, the "revolutionary" impact of modern art, the meaninglessness of life etc. They undermine reason, rational values and emotional coherence and, therewith, any perspective of a rational and moral alternative to the status quo.
      From the Kerouacs and the Burroughses to the Sloterdijks and the Baudrillards, they are not less unenlightened than classical rightism. They are friends of immobilism. Probably they would have been ignored if things had been different.

Please react! See our Discussion Page

Return to Mainpage

Access count: