Thoughts on the Intrinsic Madness of the Left
Yes -- and this will no doubt come as news to materialists -- there is a "human world" to which we must adapt, just as there is a material world to which we must adapt. Failure of the latter leads to physical disease, just as failure of the former leads to psychological or spiritual illness. To cite a couple more empirical studies, married people tend to be happier than the unmarried, while failure to be religious carries the approximate health risk of smoking a pack or so of cigarettes a day.
There are so many ways to consider this problem. For example, "sexuality" is a reality to which humans must adapt on pain of dysfunction. But human sexuality is obviously different than animal sexuality. Now, I can affirm this because I am a humanist, which is to say, spiritual. But an anti-human materialist can make no such assertion, since his philosophy reduces humanness to animality (or the reverse, which amounts to the same thing).
Just the other day a typical troll argued that there was no real distinction between animal and human, which we hear all the time, as it is a necessary consequence of the principles of materialism. For a materialist, the fact that our genes are 95% or 99% similar to a chimp is a highly significant fact. To a spiritual person, it only highlights the infinite gap between genes and humanness. In any event, to the extent that a human being believes that human sexuality is no different than animal sexuality, his hopes for finding human sexual happiness will be reduced to chance at best. He will probably end up learning more about sex from the movies than from eternal human archetypes (which, by the way, the movies once reflected).
As I have said before -- and I know it sounds polemical, but it's not -- the Democrat Party is the Party of Dysfunction. Their racist attitude toward race is well documented and would be too tedious to discuss again. To cite another glaring example, the Democrat party can only function as a party to the extent that it both produces and appeals to dysfunctional people. Now, I don't want to cast aspersions on a whole race of people, but consider the fact that single women are by far the largest constituency of the Democrat party. According to statistics cited in the 12.03.07 National Review, "Democrats haven't won more than 43 percent of the white-male vote in 30 years." For example, Al Gore won only 36% of white males, while John Kerry won 37%. "If no women had voted on Election Day 2000, George Bush and Dick Cheney would have carried 43 states."
Now, don't get me wrong. That's not what I'm suggesting. The article -- which was written by a woman, BTW -- goes on to point out that the female vote is hardly "the monolithic bloc of feminist fantasy," but breaks down into married vs. single women. Much more significant than the "gender gap" is the "marriage gap." For example, in the recent congressional elections, "the marriage gap was a huge 32 points, compared with a gender gap of just 9 points." And this gap cuts across all other demographics, including race, income, and education. So single women are by far the largest segment of the Democrat base, more than blacks and hispanics combined.
Therefore, it should not surprise us that the Democrat party is the anti-marriage party, since the more people marry, the worse things are for them. To put it another way, their electoral success is directly tied to the weakening and/or destruction of the family as we know it. But I would guess that for most people -- and I don't need a study to prove this -- the greatest source of their happiness -- not to mention, mental stability -- is their family. Thus, the Democrats must again be the party of unhappiness and mental illness if they are to be a party at all.
One of the reasons fewer women marry is because of the ideological success of feminism, which has brainwashed women into believing that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, and that a women certainly does not require a man or children to find fulfillment and to be happy. Thus, to the extent that a woman does possess a higher archetype of femininity, or that she requires loving relationship with a good man in order to find fulfillment, she will have a void that cannot be named and therefore addressed. True, some women are no doubt happier droning away at some meaningless job than they are in being married and raising children, but it's not as many as feminists would have you think. Mrs. G. for example, thought she was happy as a career woman, but it turned out she wasn't -- that it was just a compensation for a choice she had been brainwashed not to make.
Because secular leftism is materialistic, it abolishes all archetypal human distinctions, and human distinctions are what make us distinct as humans. For example, if there are no distinctions between men and women, it naturally follows that those opposed to the redefinition of marriage are bigoted as opposed to discerning, for what difference does it make?
But freedom means nothing if it is truly "radical," i.e., if there is no intrinsic purpose to our humanness. Thus, the existentialist is "free," but as Sartre concluded, in the absence of a human essence, it is a freedom that is indistinguishable from "infinite nothingness." But in the Raccoon scheme of things, freedom is the power to realize our specifically human potential, an archetypal potential that lies both "before" and "above" us. In short, it is eternal, but must be realized in time.
Again, on the material view of things, our nonlocal potential must be collapsed into the material domain, so our freedom will be limited to ultimately meaningless material choices down in 3D. This, by the way, is why the wealthy hedonists of the left fantasize that they empathize with "the poor." It's because they project their own spiritual emptiness into them, and imagine that the poor must be as unfulfilled as they are, because so focused on material lack. But another study came out this week -- I'm too lazy to try to find it at the moment -- that showed that a significant majority of Republicans are of modest means, while the Democrats are the party of the wealthy. This is because these conservative "values voters" are unaware of the envious absence, the active spiritual void, that gnaws away at the leftist. How selfish of them!
With the devolution to secular leftism comes the loss of role and the loss of hierarchy. No one knows their place or their true identity, which is one of the things that fuels celebrity culture, which necessarily conflates the famous with the significant. More importantly, because of the assumptions of materialism, it allows everyone to believe that they have either reached the summit of perfection, or, if not, that they have been unjustly denied it. If "everyone is equal," the obvious lack of equality will be intrinsically unfair and corrupt. This again fuels envy, which is terribly corrosive to any kind of human happiness.
I'll leave you with a little passage from Bolton's The Order of the Ages: World History in the Light of a Universal Cosmogony:
"[T]he norms of Man, Woman, Child, and Adult belong among the archetypal realities, the realization of which never ceases to be a basic condition for existence. In proportion as these universal archetypes fail to be realized, life can easily be experienced as a continuous low-intensity mental torture which can produce life-threatening cumulative effects, owing to the maladjustment and interpersonal conflicts fostered by it.
"Realizing significant archetypal realities in oneself, having a sense of identity, and finding happiness, are inseparable, because the archetype or Form is the ultimate object of self-knowledge, without which the self is not knowable even to itself. Only in proportion as one knows what one is can one consistently act in a manner coherent with one's nature and find fulfillment."
Regarding the left's racial pathology and its contribution to human misery, here's a little gem from Taranto:
Take That, You Little Cracker!
Here's an appalling press release from the University of Texas:
Challenging the idea that racism education could be harmful to students, a new study from The University of Texas at Austin found the results of learning about historical racism are primarily positive....
Both white and black children who learned about racism were more likely to value racial fairness and to express greater satisfaction with the lesson. White children whose lessons included information on discrimination showed more defensiveness, had more racial guilt and were less likely to accept stereotypical views about African Americans.
Breaking down stereotypes is all well and good, but what kind of sicko thinks it's "positive" to make 7-year-olds feel guilty about the color of their skin?