Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Homo Psychosis, the Cult of Sacrifice, and the PC Virus

I was going to add some second thoughts on my second post, but I think I'll just let it stand, with some light editing.

*****

If one is going to engage in comparative religion, one needs to exit history and take a martian's-eye view of the situation. From that trans-historical viewpoint, the Judeo-Christian tradition emerges not as religion, but the cure for religion. Allow me to explain.

The default religion of human beings is the practice of human sacrifice (cf. here and here). This is a pathological virus planted deep in the heart of the human species, which has been given insufficient attention by both theologians and morally relative anthro-apologists. Virtually all primitive cultures and ancient civilizations engaged in it. For reasons I try to explain in my book, there is something spontaneously "holy" or "sacred" in the taking of innocent human life.

For example, Aztec religion centered around the sacrifice of thousands of innocent human beings a year. As such, it was the disease it sought to cure. Again, taking the martian's-eye view, humans are a sick and troubled species. They especially need a cure for their priomordial religion.

Obviously, the foundation stone of the whole Judeo-Christian tradition -- where it all begins in the timeless archetypal realm -- is the injunction against human sacrifice, when God tells Abraham not to kill him a son out on Highway 61. Superficially, Christianity may be seen as a resuscitation of the sacrificial motif, with the murder of the innocent Jesus, but in reality, this is clearly intended to convey the idea that when we murder innocence, we murder God. The crucifixion of Jesus is meant to be the last human sacrifice, in such a way that our murderous impulses are sublimated. (Bailie's Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads extends the idea of Jesus as universal scapegoat for our sacrificial violence.)

Unfortunately, Islam seems to involve an explicit reversion to the sacrificial motif, and a return to "mere" religion. If one reads the Koran, one is struck by how frequently Allah instructs his followers to murder in his name. While Christians have obviously behaved badly in the past, there is nothing in the actual Christian message that justifies it. As such, the Biblical text is ultimately "self-correcting." Not necessarily so with the Koran. There is nothing in the Koran that categorically forbids the Islamists to do what they do, and much that encourages it. Far from engaging in some kind of religious aberration, the Islamists are not just following the letter of their law, but the spirit of human "religiosity" in general.

Political correctness is a specifically western perversion of Christianity, since Christianity is the religion that elevates the ultimate victim to the status of Godhood: in the bi-logic of the symmetrical unconscious, God is the innocent victim and the innocent victim is therefore God. (Importantly, I am not speaking here theologically and consciously, but anthropologically and unconsciously; because of the influence of Christianity, people in the West develop different unconscious assumptions about mankind, even if they are not explicitly religious.)

Therefore, improperly understood, this Christian cognitive template puts in place a sort of cultural "race to the bottom" in competition for who is more oppressed, and therefore, more godlike. One can see how Jesus' truly radical message that "the meek shall inherit the earth" can be perverted to mean "the victim shall be all-powerful." The demagogic John Edwards campaign was almost entirely based on this perversion.

Once you understand this dynamic, you see it everywhere. What we call the "news" is almost entirely shaped by this unconscious template. For example, the Democrat presidential race is pitting one liberal victim group against another, with bizarre but predictable consequences, e.g., the gynecidal Ted Kennedy has "victimized" women by endorsing the black candidate, who is probably not really a victim anyway, since his father was Kenyan, even though all Africans are by definition victims; four years ago the press tried to paint John Kerry as a victim of the noble men he victimized with his grotesque anti-American rhetoric; and so on. You can also see that the sub-prime mortgage "crisis" is mostly a crisis if you believe that it is the government's job to rescue victims who are victimized by their own bad economic judgment (Tom Sowell touches on this today).

People who actually practice Christianity don't generally have this confusion. Rather, it is only secular types who are nevertheless parasitic on the deep structure of a specifically Christian phenomenology.

Once victim status is secured, then any behavior is excused and sanctioned. This is how, say, the Palestinians (and the left in general), always "get away" with such bad behavior. For once you are the victim, you are virtually omnipotent and can do anything with impunity. Like OJ, you can murder someone, but if you can manage to depict yourself as the victim, you are innocent. A victim is always a bully, and the unscrupulous person seizes victim status in order to mask his aggressive bullying, spuriously converting sadism into righteousness, e.g., Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, et al.

One of the problems with political correctness is that it is not just a weakness of thought, but a defense against thought. In other words, "dangerous" thoughts that threaten to undermine the PC world view are pre-emptively attacked.

Ironically, it is much more difficult to wrestle with weak ideas and thinkers than strong ones. This is because different minds reflect different levels of cognitive development, and while someone at a higher level possesses all of the capacities of the lower, those on a lower level literally have no point of contact with the higher. In the Darwinian sense, ideologies compete for minds, so leftism has a huge advantage, given the weakness and flabbiness of most minds.

For example, it is easy to disprove to a logical thinker that the sun does not revolve around the earth, much more difficult to prove to a primitive thinker that the earth doesn't rest on the back of a giant turtle. Likewise, it is easy to prove to a logical thinker that men and women have intrinsic differences, that hurricaines have nothing to do with man-made global warming, or that most poverty and criminality are caused by bad values, but impossible to prove these things to a PC mind. (This new book by Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, absolutely demolishes every irrational liberal cliche about the economy.)

In fact, not only does the PC/primitive mind not understand your arguments, but they convert and distort what you are saying into something that reflects their own childish level, and then project it back into you. Therefore: you don't care about the environment, you just want to enrich corporations; you don't care about actual economic principles, you just want tax cuts for the wealthy; you are only against affirmative action because you hate blacks; you are for privatization of social security because you just want to enrich giant mutual fund companies; you want America to prevail in Iraq because you are an imperialist racist; etc., etc., etc. Pure projection to which it is practically impossible to respond in an effective way, any more than you can convince a three year-old that the moon doesn't follow them when they walk. You just have to wait until they grow up.

45 Comments:

Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Far from engaging in some kind of religious aberration, the Islamists are not just following the letter of their law, but the spirit of human "religiosity" in general."

And how often have we heard "moderate" Muslims attempt to "explain" Jihad, or any other verse in the Koran, Sura, etc., that explicitely urges violence against women and those of other Religions (specifically Jews and Christians)?

That's not to say there isn't any moderate Muslims, but their claims that Islam is the RoP are ludicrous, in the very least.
One only has take a cursory glance at history to know that.

1/30/2008 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

"You just have to wait until they grow up."

In some cases, you could be waiting for a mighty looong time.

1/30/2008 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Therefore, improperly understood, this Christian cognitive template puts in place a sort of cultural "race to the bottom" in competition for who is more oppressed, and therefore, more godlike. One can see how Jesus' truly radical message that "the meek shall inherit the earth" can be perverted to mean "the victim shall be all-powerful." The demagogic John Edwards campaign was almost entirely based on this perversion."

One of the best of the best of your paragraphs that clearly describes Leftism in general and the Democratic party in particular (of which some Republicans are doing to a lesser extant).
"Moderate" Republican is a misnomer, IMO.

1/30/2008 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"One of the problems with political correctness is that it is not just a weakness of thought, but a defense against thought. In other words, "dangerous" thoughts that threaten to undermine the PC world view are pre-emptively attacked."

Wow, Bob! That is it in a nutshell, and I mean that literally.
BTW, it does work. That's why it's a waste of time to "debate" these nuts, 'cause they never hear what you say because they are "protected" by their PC nutshell.
Probably Brazillion, I'm bettin'.

1/30/2008 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

"...the Judeo-Christian tradition emerges not as religion, but the cure for religion."

I love that. To take it further, one might say Judaism was the treatment for religion ("the law and the prophets") and Christianity is the cure ("fulfillment").

One might.

1/30/2008 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Ben - Only if they get it in their heads will they have it in a nutshell.

1/30/2008 09:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Jay said...

I think I will pitch the idea for a Biggest Victim reality TV show, after all that is what most of them are, and we can just get it over with once-and-for-all. Perhaps it would illustrate some absurdity along the way.

1/30/2008 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

And it seems the ultimate anti-Christian idea is to create a 'world mother' government; one that 'guarantees' your rights by restricting everyone else's, provided you don't mind not thinking. An example of this idea (which probably has been with us for awhile now) is this site. It's so creepy that I think it must be a parody, I mean, the logo, which looks like a half formed upside-down pentagram? But, its like trutherism; just as crazy, and possibly just as serious. Who can know with this stuff?

I often wonder if part of the 'tribulation' will not be an escape into the perils of space for a thousand years of those who still have the nous to recognize the evil and danger of such a thing...

1/30/2008 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger Elephant said...

Woah, River. Where/how did you find that? It is as if "Left Behind" made a website showing what the Anti-Christ website would be. I don't mean to joke around. It is just so precisely exactly the image of what Christians are be-wary of when thinking of the Abomination of Desecration. It does seem like a joke because it is so exactly terrible. I just have one word, well maybe two - eww and gross. I feel like I oughtta take a shower now. Yuck!

1/30/2008 11:45:00 AM  
Blogger Elephant said...

Given the fact that there are a few typos, it makes me think it is not real. But who knows...?

1/30/2008 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

John 3:19
a knocker beckons
at the door of perception
men prefer darkness

1/30/2008 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

By the way, it's often said that God calls to his own, someone had noted that the church - the real thing - has a recursive property to it. I looked up recursion, and I nearly fell off my seat.

3 : a computer programming technique involving the use of a procedure, subroutine, function, or algorithm that calls itself one or more times until a specified condition is met at which time the rest of each repetition is processed from the last one called to the first.

(Merriam-Webster)

1/30/2008 12:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"'One of the problems with political correctness is that it is not just a weakness of thought, but a defense against thought. In other words, "dangerous" thoughts that threaten to undermine the PC world view are pre-emptively attacked.'

Wow, Bob! That is it in a nutshell, and I mean that literally.
BTW, it does work. That's why it's a waste of time to "debate" these nuts, 'cause they never hear what you say because they are "protected" by their PC nutshell.
Probably Brazillion, I'm bettin'."

I sort'a view it as a fight between children more or less, with no moderating adult. PC is merely a childish response to childish behavior. While name-calling and unnecessary accusations abound, I would agree that it is equally stupid to get upset, especially when it does not relate to you. And it is in complete hypocrisy.
I would be sure to find an instance of you being an exemplary "nut" because I'm sure you have found taken offense by some troll using unnecessary verbiage in referring to you. Which the exact reason it seems so pathetic whenever the debate comes up. Wait, in fact, let me find a link for you it would be perfect... I will post again soon.

1/30/2008 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/addiscartoon.jpg

took me forever, found this on reddit.com

1/30/2008 12:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which isn't to say that this is the only way it happens, because both sides on whatever issue pull the same crap.

My only issue is people are more offensive than they need to be, and often it destroys their credibility, and it also degrades their acceptance by those with opposite viewpoints, even those with moderate viewpoints.

Bush Sr once blamed the internet, specifically bloggers, for the increasing tension among political difference. I would agree in part, it has promoted ignorance and I find that often a lot of stories get twisted by whomever presents it.

1/30/2008 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Anon said:
"I would be sure to find an instance of you being an exemplary "nut" because I'm sure you have found taken offense by some troll using unnecessary verbiage in referring to you."

You must be a newish reader & can't have spent much time reading comments here:
Bob has faithful RagGoons just itching to put on jackboots & their cute brown outfits & have a little fun with Aninnys who wander in & insult Dear Leader.

Great for you to so above-it-all & likely envision can yourself in the role' of moderating adult.....

Snore

Your comments taste to me of 'can't we all just get along' & other such confused nonsense.

What a dull world it would be

1/30/2008 03:26:00 PM  
Anonymous lefty blogtroller said...

Fascinating post. I agree with your position(s), which isn't good as I am a dedicated lefty blogtroll. Keep this up and I'll have to move to a different ideological framework.

1/30/2008 05:00:00 PM  
Blogger Elephant said...

R. Starfish,



I forgot to say,
today's haiku stirred true - form
and content did bless.


Thank you.

1/30/2008 05:10:00 PM  
Anonymous maineman said...

"My only issue is people are more offensive than they need to be, and often it destroys their credibility, and it also degrades their acceptance by those with opposite viewpoints, even those with moderate viewpoints."

I suppose. The problem is that "those with moderate viewpoints" are often unconsciously advocating the destruction of all we know and are. I always feel like a better person when I don't rip their throats out, but it's hard not to lose it and start shaking them and screaming in their faces. So, instead, I try to confront them with a civil discourse designed to get them to stop trying to destroy us. Which has yet to bear fruit.

David Warren did a wonderful recent piece on the consequences of one such "moderate" viewpoint here Abortion

1/30/2008 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Anon said-
"PC is merely a childish response to childish behavior."

No, PC is a fascist tactic designed to stifle Liberty.

"My only issue is people are more offensive than they need to be, and often it destroys their credibility, and it also degrades their acceptance by those with opposite viewpoints, even those with moderate viewpoints."

That's your "only" issue? No wonder you like PC so much.
Moderation is great when it involves dietary intake, but it sucks irt self evident truths.

Obviously you don't begin to understand the meaning of PC, and if you believe that what I said is offensive, you don't know what offensive is neither.

Apparently you perceive yourself to be on some "moral high ground" because you're a moderate.
In reality you just don't have the cajones to make your own damn choices let alone stand up for the Liberty to do so.

And for the record, if you measure "credibilty" by how "nice" someone is to you, then you're even more of an idiot than you appear to be.

1/30/2008 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Good link, Maineman!

1/30/2008 05:29:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Political correctness is the systematic substitution of uncomfortable truths with paliative lies. PC insinuates the Lie into every order of thinking. It cuts off truth at the knees.
It's some evil shit, really.

JWM

1/30/2008 05:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you must be a nerd ximeze. bullies beat you up in school?

1/30/2008 05:45:00 PM  
Anonymous maineman said...

Anon,

What exactly about a raccoon in jackboots sounds nerdy to you? A little weird, I'll grant you, but not nerdy.

1/30/2008 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

raccoon teeth and claws
aninnymouse for dinner
mmmm, got a toothpick?

1/30/2008 09:48:00 PM  
Blogger phil g said...

This second time through feels as fresh and relavent as the first. Bravo!!!

1/31/2008 03:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You see Ben, I didn't say I found what you said to be offensive. And I didn't say PC was a good thing either... Did I not express that clearly? You clearly took offense, and intended offense back. See, while you sit in your chair all upset because I took the "moral" high ground(sheesh, it is utterly pathetic when having basic manners is the moral high ground, it's more like you've chosen to take the moral low, it is not my fault you've forgotten your manners). So, here I sit completely composed and not bothered by your anger, for I'm not the one who cannot handle my emotions(I am also not the one who seems to lack reading comprehension either, because I clearly did not express any favor of PC, how attentive of you)

You are exactly the kind of person who creates the problems we see today. If you would only shut up and listen perhaps you would not have made such an ignorant ass of yourself. Clearly you can't read, and clearly you think yourself to be on some moral high ground(hypocrite), why else would you chastise me for being mature when you could easily do the same? Why don't you come up to my level instead of flinging shit at me from that hole you've decided to put yourself in? Because your aim is terribly, you haven't hit a single offense because you didn't get a single point I made.

BTW, I didn't say that I base credibility on how "nice" somebody is. I said that one loses credibility when they get offensive. I didn't say ALL credibility, I didn't say that they'll lose credibility with me. In general, when somebody starts being offensive, the audience tends to distance themselves from that individual, unless the audience shares the same exact beliefs. I don't see how the general population equates to me. I understand people have their beliefs, I won't discredit somebody because of their behavior(though often it does indicate bias that should be considered), but the general population does take ones manners seriously(often times more than they should).

I will take offense to the fact that you tried attack me when you had absolutely no idea what I was talking about apparently, seeing as how every point you brought up was flatly false or construed. It's easy to knock down straw men Ben. But somehow you still fall flat on your ass.

1/31/2008 05:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should mention that Anon from 5:45 PM is not me, should that be brought up somehow.

1/31/2008 05:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being a moderate btw, merely means that I disagree and agree with many aspects of both sides. I've made my choice, simply put, I have the "cajones" to put up a fight from all directions. You've taken the sheepish route, and merely sided with one of the big teams, and probably suppressed any opposing viewpoints to merely stay the popular route. From my perspective, pawns don't have "cajones". Being moderate doesn't mean I'm indifferent or inactive.


And to Ximeze, what was the point of that post? You explained the situation, but you really didn't provide an argument. Ok, I'm fine with that. I guess I don't have a rebuttal to that comment. Snore.

1/31/2008 05:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, I understand that this isn't the moral high ground. But, I don't recall ever caring about being on it. It's like a pie fight, you stay out until somebody throws one at you. Hypocrite? yes. Did I care? no. It was worth it.

Although, maineman, I'd have to disagree. That article doesn't really cover the moderate viewpoint of abortion, it actually covers the indifferent viewpoint of abortion(which may be how a moderate feels towards it) But should a moderate decide abortion is unethical(which the only ethical arguments for is very limited, and even those favoring it only favor it in certain circumstances very early in pregnancy) then it isn't on the moderate. But people who are indifferent are not the same as politically moderate.

1/31/2008 06:16:00 AM  
Anonymous maineman said...

Anon,

Then I would have to say that I think you missed Warren's point and my own. I can't think of any way that abortion can be seen as anything other than pervasively destructive, psychosocially, socioculturally, morally, and biologically, without resorting to rationalization and denial.

I don't mean to be dismissive, because I think I was where you seem to be on the issue as recently as 6 months ago. But when one's perspective becomes more inclusive, which is what I think has happened to me, there's just no going back. And I now gnow that there's nothing moderate about support for abortion on demand and that, in fact, it is a radically destructive and ultimately nihilistic perspective. Very extreme, in other words, rather than moderate.

1/31/2008 06:40:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Anon-
LOL! Me angry, at you? No, actually you're beneath contempt.
I would try to explain what I said to you but I forgot how to be that stupid.

BTW, your writing is mostly incoherent and your arguements are juvenile and pathetic.

Woof!

1/31/2008 07:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I'm not that Anonymous either, nor am I the other Anonymous, just to keep things straight.

1/31/2008 07:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That one Anonymous is a fricken moron.

1/31/2008 07:55:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

My dear Anonymous (from 12:25 & 5:04),
part of the problem here, unfortunately, stems from the fact that in your first post there is a decided lack of clarity in your last paragraph (frankly, it's not very coherent), in which you appear to be calling Bob a hypocrite. If that's what you meant, then by your own argument you have no business taking offense though others here reply less than kindly, and it is in fact you who is clearly the hypocrite. If that's not what you meant, then again by your own arguments you shouldn't be getting upset by the responses (which you clearly do), but instead you'd probably be better served by clarifying just what you did mean.

Which is all a rather long-winded way of saying, what was your point?

1/31/2008 08:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uhh, and your point is?

1/31/2008 08:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That wasn't me.

1/31/2008 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Anonymous - truly a man of his times.

The idea that we will all be united in peace and prosperity if we just 'be courteous' or 'diplomatic' ignores a few problems:

1. The truth, which is to say, the fullness thereof, is non-negotiable. We can't negotiate about the existence of truth. There is no middle ground.

2. It is a pernicious error to assume that our agreement would create anything other than a monstrosity; we need only recall what 'bipartisanship' looks like in Washington D.C. - people 'working together across party lines' for their own enrichment. At whose expense? Everyone else's.

3. Peace is not possible where there is no peace. This is a 'minim', but also a Maxim, peace, meaning the harmony of all mankind, can not exist where there is not a harmony within each soul. But, the world is fallen; as long as it is so Utopia is a pipe dream.

I think people mistake Bob's broad-mindedness and open-mindedness for 'having negotiable ethics/morals'. They see him pulling from various sources that new-agers draw from and assume he has a similar mental and spiritual promiscuity.

And then came DuPree...

1/31/2008 10:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't presume to insult me by calling me a man!

1/31/2008 10:23:00 AM  
Anonymous maineman said...

Okay, now I'm confused. Which anonymous is the sexist bigot?

1/31/2008 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That wasn't me either! Or was that other one! Or is the one before last and the one next to first! Wait, this one isn't me either! Oh yeah, I forgot how confusing it is being a moderate.

My point is that you're all angry and I'm not and it shows! I'm not the least bit upset just so you know. I'm completely composed.

Coons? Yes, the Looney Coons who follow the likes of Bill OReilly and snake oil salesmen.

And those other posts are not me either, just in case it comes up.

And either is this one.

1/31/2008 10:57:00 AM  
Anonymous El Gordo said...

You make an interesting and mostly convincing point Gabdad. living in Europe, i can definately see the ass end of left wing PC hysteria and yes, there is no way of debating these people cause they lack the intellectual capacity to even consider that they may be wrong.

However I do see some inconsistencies in your argument:

1) Lets assume that you are correct in you theory that human sacrifice is a pathological virus that is planted in our heart and that must be (and was) removed by the introduction of christianity.

My problem is i dont see the difference between this correction in innate thought or behaviour compared to our innate racism which PC is trying to "cure". So if we agree that human sacrifice is something that we are born with, then why cant racism or prejudice be so as well. Or rather a "fear of the unknown".

PC is definately a weakness of thought, a filter through which your thoughts are regulated and suppressed (by yourself)
I would argue that Christianity or any religion does exactly the same.
So in conclusion, if Christianity was a cure for human sacrifice, then PC can be seen as a cure for intolerance.

You cant have it both ways.

2/01/2008 05:35:00 AM  
Blogger Elephant said...

el gordo,

I think the point is that PC misses the point and goes for the surface appearance of things and therefore de-powers. It takes the locus off of the person and onto a trait, for lack of better word. It is an ideology not a way.

2/01/2008 08:34:00 AM  
Blogger Kiran Paranjape said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2/06/2008 02:46:00 AM  
Blogger Kiran Paranjape said...

"the Vedic seers had come to the identical conclusion about the world that he had -- except that they had found a way to pass beyond it, not through thought, but by somehow transcending thought."

In Hindu Vedantic Philosophy, the ultimate aim of human life is to be one with God where The God is preceived as The Omnipresent & Omnipotent creative power of the universe. Essentially, human mind correlates to physical needs & pleasures of the physical body while soul correlates to spiritual body. In other words, mind is a microcsmic presentation of macrocosmic physical body & soul is a miscocosmic pressentation of macrocosmic spiritual body. If one can retract his mind from mundane physical world & anchor it to the God, his thoughts will also be divine. Thus the person will transcend mentally from physical world to spiritual word.

Webmaster - Translations
http://freetranslationblog.blogspot.com

2/06/2008 02:49:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home