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