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
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
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
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
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"
Neither aquired rights, nor
collective agreements, and neither strikes nor any other physical
action of opponents should ever be allowed to counteract decisions
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
d) The variation as to average IQ of classes and races
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
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
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
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
1) socio-philosophical relativism;
2) the idea that "all men have equal value";
3) rejecting the toppling of cruel regimes (Iraq, Saudi-Arabia,
4) objecting to abolishing many technicalities and rights of defendants
that often frustrate finding the truth ("privacy", "unlawfully
5) objecting to interviewing (groups of) politicians with the
aid of a lie-detector;
6) anti-eugenics and repression of the qualitative genetic differences
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
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
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