Wednesday, September 05, 2012

The DNC: Nowhere Men in a No-Man's Land

In view of the enormities of contemporary liberalism, it seems like a small thing. Yet, expunging the word God from their platform is both the cause and consequence of an agenda that must revolve around eliminating man in order to save him; or to make man as inconsequential as he can be in order to make the state as consequential as it must be.

It is also fitting, because reference to God in such a pneumapathic atmosphere is hypocritical, unseemly, and cowardly. Again: emulate Nietzsche, and accept the consequences of your nihilism. If you strike a king you must kill him! You'll still be an assoul, but at least you'll walk the walk and not just talk the schlock.

To oust God from the cosmos is to eliminate man. To the uninitiated this will sound polemical, but it is such a truism that it amounts to a banality.

Consider the many references to the Absolute in our founding document: God, Nature's God, Creator, Divine Providence, Supreme Judge of the World, etc. This goes to who we are as a people, unless or until we agree on a new Declaration.

"People" is a mere abstraction if severed from transcendent reality, with no interior unity or ontological reality. Again: in the absence of a common Father, brotherhood is just rhetoric of a more or less cynical nature. All tyrannies stress "brotherhood," "fraternity," "comradeship," etc., by way of compensation for the absence of the Father.

But a herd is not a brotherhood; although, in a certain way becomes one when it is being led to the slaughterhouse. People can suddenly discover their common patrimony under such extreme circumstances.

For this reason, I doubt we'll be hearing too many complaints from evangelicals about Mitt Romney's Mormonism. For inverse -- and perverse -- reasons, the left doesn't complain about Obama's deformed brand of Marxist Christianism.

It cannot be overemphasized that to attack God is to diminish man. Man exists in light of the Absolute. It is what defines man, and distinguishes him from the beasts.

Thus, to eliminate God is to render man an animal only. Is it any wonder that the left is the champion of so many modern vulgarities and animalisms? As witnessed yesterday, nothing excites more passion in a leftist than the prospect of diminishing the "right" to late term abortion and even infanticide.

From where does this right emanate, and when does a woman acquire it? In the womb? I don't think so, for few little girls -- and no normal one -- would choose to exercise it on themselves. Thus, it cannot be a right in the American sense. (And it is the last right Darwin's flatland nature would ever accord an organism, who has only an in-built obligation to reproduce and no right not to.)

Now, only human beings have rights. They have rights because they are human beings, and they are human beings because they live in the tension between relative and Absolute (from whom the rights originate, as set forth by our wiser Fathers).

You could say that animals have rights -- which they most certainly do -- but only if these rights are recognized (in both senses of the term) by human beings. The animal itself knows of no such thing, because it has no conception of the Absolute.

Every animal is a consistent Darwinian and nothing more -- an Is with no Ought. But even a man as intellectually impoverished as Moe Howard will still proclaim: why I oughtta!

A comment by reader Van just reminded me of another unappealing corollary of the left's godlessness: that "Government is the only thing we all belong to." Expressed in a grammatically correct manner, the almighty state is that to which we all belong.

This word "belong" troubles me. One can belong to a church, for example. But if one sours on the preacher, one can quit and join another one.

But when the leftist insists that we belong to the state, he is not speaking of a voluntary association but more in the mode of possession: we belong to the state in the same way my child belongs to me.

But even that is a mischaracterization, because I am not my son's owner, just a temporary custodian who is there to help potentiate his eventual self-possession. To the extent that he remains an immature dependent, then I will have failed as a parent. But when the state makes you an immature dependent, it has succeeded. Big difference.

There are certain intrinsic dualities without which it is impossible to understand man's existential situation. We have already spoken of relative <--> absolute, or man <--> God; there is also adult <--> child, male <--> female, husband <--> wife, time <--> eternity, sacred <--> profane, truth <--> falsehood, soul <--> body, and many more. Man always lives in the dialectical tension between the two principles, the most adequate symbol of which being the Tao (because I can't think of an adequate symbol for the Trinity).

Two things are necessary to understand the symbol of the Tao: first is the encompassing circle, which signifies a deeper unity beneath the dynamic terms. For example, in Genesis this is conveyed via the idea that "God created them man-and-woman" (Plato expresses the same idea, albeit not as adequately).

In other words, man-and-woman is the proper unit of man in principle. But in the manifestation -- the herebelow -- we have the dynamic play between man and woman, through which each party perfects him/herself and reascends toward wholeness and unity.

"At the same time and on another level" (to reference the title of a book by Grotstein), there is the adult <--> child dynamism, through which children become adults and adults become children. Why the latter?

For a number of reasons. First, in order to understand the infant one must in a way "become" the infant, and this is only possible to the extent that one understands and tolerates one's own "internal infant." Much child abuse is a direct consequence of inability to tolerate the latter, who is then projected into the exterior baby and neglected, punished, abused, etc.

But more generally, man is characterized by perpetual neoteny, i.e., "permanent immaturity." Interestingly, volume one of the above-referenced work by Grotstein has a chapter entitled "the once-and-forever-evolving-infant of the unconscious." I couldn't have put it better, for man is always on the way to a perfected manhood he can never reach in the absence of fully realized sainthood. But who more than the saint realizes his childlike dependency upon God?

But infants also dream of unrealizable utopias, which is why they need to be in a tutelary relation to adults (both in the interior and exterior senses; in other words, a mature adult lives in a kind of permanent play with his unconscious/supraconsious mind).

Let's round this out with a little Voegelin, because he provides another perspective on the same reality (i.e., the philosophical, on top of the political, theological, and psychoanalytic).

As we know, the word "utopia" was coined by Sir Thomas More, and means literally nowhere. Among other things this implies that the utopian is a Nobody -- or a Nowhere Man -- who wants us all to belong to his nonexistent Nowhere Land. And ♬♭♫ isn't this a bit like D-N-C? ♪♬♩

How does the Nowhere Man acquire his pathological utopianism?

Voegelin concedes that "it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine in the case of an individual activist whether the suspension [of consciousness] is an act of

[1] "intellectual fraud

[2] "or of pervasive self-deception,

[3] "whether it is a case of plain illiteracy

[4] "or of the more sophisticated illiteracy imposed by an educational system,

[5] "or whether it is caused by a degree of spiritual and intellectual insensitivity that comes under the head of stupidity,

[6] "or whether it is due to... the desire to attract public attention and make a career."

There are, of course, other reasons. But just considering the current crop of regulars appearing on the DNC s*itcom, I would assign [1] to the fraudulent Debbie Wasserman Schultz, [2] to the androphobic feminist activists, [3] to the rank-and-foul delegate, [4] to the brains-with-stupidity of President Obama, [5] to the stupidity-without-brains of Joe Biden, and [6] to the sociopathic opportunist and political climber Charlie Crist.

That's quite a coalition.


mushroom said...

All tyrannies stress "brotherhood," "fraternity," "comradeship," etc., by way of compensation for the absence of the Father.

Indeed, the original tripartite motto of the French revolution was Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort. In other words, just like today, "be my brother, don't excel, let me do what I want -- or I will kill you."

OK, back to the post.

Van Harvey said...

"But when the leftist insists that we belong to the state, he is not speaking of a voluntary association but more in the mode of possession: we belong to the state in the same way my child belongs to me."

Yep. And it is because the leftist views you as something which belongs to them, that they are also able to view your 'rights' as benefits which they give to you... on condition of your good behavior.

And that 'we can use government in a good way' is the means of conditioning your 'good' behavior.

ted said...

"And ♬♭♫ isn't this a bit like D-N-C? ♪♬♩"

It's actually an...


I didn't realize how many excuses there were for pathological utopianism!

mushroom said...

Dear Feral Government, Democrats, and Amateur Tyrants:

With regard to the recent Democrat Party claim that we all belong to the government, I have been instructed to inform you by my Master that there is a prior and superior claim upon my life and service. In fact, the only reason I, along with some millions of my fellow servants, have not burned Washington, D.C., down around your ears is because the Master has instructed us that, as much as is humanly possible for us, we are to be at peace with all men. Nevertheless, I am afraid, if you persist in your claims, the consequences might not be altogether in accordance with your preferences.

If you have a problem with this, you are more than welcome to take it up with Him to Whom I owe my life and allegiance. Though not generally accessible on your smart phone, wireless audiences are routinely granted. For some reason, reception seems better on one’s knees. Please be advised, however, that His answer is likely to be very short, very blunt, and quite disturbing.

For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. – 1 Corinthians 7:22-23

Paul Griffin said...

And it is the last right Darwin's flatland nature would ever accord an organism, who has only an in-built obligation to reproduce and no right not to.

I have often wondered at this odd stance. For the Darwinist/Materialist, isn't reproduction the only imperative? You'd think they would be screaming for the death penalty for those that would abort a successful impregnation...

Now, if the doctor was performing the abortion so as to make the woman available for impregnation with his own offspring, I could at least understand the reasoning. As it stands now, it's almost as if they just want to do whatever they want and the philosophical justification for these murders of convenience comes later.

Even more odd, why should an atheist feel the need to justify himself?

Rick said...

I don't know about your dog,
but my dog doesn't plan that far ahead.
I mean, he's learned that Scooby Snacks bring immediate pleasure, certainly. But reproduction? What's in it for him as far as concern for the continued survival of his genes? Sure, there's pleasure involved in the act, or so it looks that way. But who thought to put that unrelated pleasure there? Genes did this?
Once again, how did his genes get to be so smart (ahead of time) and two, why should they care?
Seems to be an awful lot of doing dependent on doers who need not know at all "The Plan".

chandler said...

I wish you were a frenzied polemicist and not just a truth teller. But maybe all of this is good. Maybe this contrast is helpful... this choice. Because with McCain and other compromisers (is McCain that much different than Crist? He considered running with Kerry!) the choice was foggy.

I look forward to this blog more than others.

Jules said...

Very refreshing as usual. Having grown up in France, I'm quite cynical about claims by. The state that they care for the peasants... socialism is about making people feel helpless so you can pose as the rescuer.. with the money of a shrinking productive class. Eventually, you go bankrupt trying to fund ll the freebies, and a lot of your taxable entrepreneurs go overseas:
Witness France, Greece.
I didn't think the USA would ever be gullible enough to be sodomized by socialism...
Let's hope the plantation slaves wake up.

EbonyRaptor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gagdad Bob said...

What's a little puzzling is that the media have such a crush on Obama and Clinton, but that Obama treats them with such contempt and Clinton treats them like idiots.

EbonyRaptor said...

By any and every measure, Obama shouldn't have even a sliver of a chance to win this election. Somebody has been pulling the wool over the our eyes. Who are the guilty ones?

While there are no shortage of scoundrels, one group sinks below the rest - the news media. They were supposed to be the gatekeepers, but instead they have foresaken their sacred calling and been enablers, propagandists, liars. They are traitors, guilty or treason and should be subject to just punishment.

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government or any other."

Are there enough patriots left ... and awake?

ge said...

RIP Joe!

Gagdad Bob said...

"I did not have sexual relations with that martian chick."

julie said...

Ha - If Clinton met a Martian chick I have no doubt he would hit that. Whether it was into him or not...

Rick said...

When I saw the picture of Bill Clinton on Drudge yesterday with his finger in the air and the caption "YOU WILL FEEL IT" my immediate reaction was repulsion. I'm not so much repulsed by him, but by the scotoma of people who catch a vision of him with such affection or veneration. That part I don't get. Maybe I have the scotoma.

He (and the DNC lineup) is like an empty canteen in the desert. The dems keep returning to him in hope to get one more drop...even though they've tried this over and over. Yet, they can't stop checking because they are dying of thirst.

I've only seen the term used once or twice: "grief porn", but there seems to be something like it going on at the DNC. Like some shared emotional loss turned very outward and aggressive. But almost like a competition to show who is the truest believer, "I care more than you."

Gagdad Bob said...

I really find him nauseating -- like a white Johnnie Cochran, who can convince anyone of anything so long as they're bigoted and stupid enough.

Harvey Mansfield described Clinton best: the envy of vulgar men.

Rick said...

I was thinking of a couple of women I know who I've witnessed practically swoon. I'm talking genuine, not kidding around like guys do about Palin, whatever.

julie said...

Oh, that's sad.

I don't care how much of a "charmer" he seems to be, he's still a creep. Kind of like that uncle that everyone knows about and warns their kids to keep their distance from, but that always shows up to family parties and a lot of the adults are willing to overlook his indiscretions because he tells a good story now and then or knows how to mix a good drink.

Someone to tolerate, if one must, but not to respect and most certainly not to trust. And swooning is right out.

Rick said...

Thank you, Julie.

I prolly shouldn't be following their campaign and reading Gulag at the same time. Getting daymares over and over...

Rick said...

Beautyfilled new pic, btw.

julie said...

Thank, Rick :)

Van Harvey said...

Ebony Raptor said "While there are no shortage of scoundrels, one group sinks below the rest - the news media."

That may be 'What' has happened, but... How? Why? Something in the job title? You don't need a 'stab in the back' scenario to explain this; never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorant philosophy. That'd be that 'How' I was talking about the other day.

The new! modern! progressive! ideas of Descartes, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Hegel, etc, swept Europe and soon caught the attention of the would-be intellectual social climbers, the 'new idea' equivalents of 'new money', in the United States, and the fad of the early 1800's was to take the European tour of the new German style universities.

Those fellow travellers swept the faculty of (surprise) Harvard first, and spread throughout the ivy league, changing not only class content but the form and method of teaching them. Govt stepped in with the Morrill Act in 1863 which officially turned the tone of Education away from Education, and towards training students for useful skills. Soon after, it was decided that national standards were needed, and so Teachers Colleges were needed to garauntee the quality (as determined by the new! idea thinkers) of teachers - since Fed dollars were involved doncha know.

That put the self-perpetuating dehumanization machine (indoctrinating out those ideas that would make people moral, self governing individuals capable of living in liberty, and into workforce ready useful skills units) in place and had it up & running by the late 1890's.

With that, the progressive top down replacement of Americans (as determined by ideas, not geographical birth) with proRegressive teachers, journalists, MBA's, Humanities, etc, which has been humming along, reaching ever greater levels of cultural saturation year after year, decade after decade, and THAT has been the source of the top-down, anti-American stupidity, that has plagued us ever since.

Cond0011 said...

"I couldn't have put it better, for man is always on the way to a perfected manhood he can never reach in the absence of fully realized sainthood. "

Why does anyone want to be 'perfected'?

Well... for me... laziness. heh.

Its just ironic that to be lazy, (or should I say... free... or maybe ... slack?), there is a certain amount of orderliness (of which 'work' aka duty) is required.

How does one get 'bigger bang for your buck' for the duration of this thing called 'life'? Yes, yes, hedonism, selfishness, greed (etc...) only goes so far as does other shallow concepts before utter boredom takes hold, but to reaaaaaally live, there is a need for acquired tastes that can only be attained on the spiritual plane: the conceptual unseen ones. Things like giving to others, wishing the best for someone that is not you (nor is related to you) leaving the world better than it was before you came, etc... These are entertainments that make you wish that your life was longer and that your life ended too soon:

I just loooove the 'game' of Shent (I believe Tad Williams was on to something). :)

Cond0011 said...

Dear Shroom,

Well put.

Going in my Archive. :)