Defending Greatness while Defending Against the Great

Let's hearken back to that political pneumagraph of a few weeks back. Recall that the vertical axis runs in the direction worldly ↑ spiritual , while the horizontal runs from collectivity → individuation. When we toss in the lower vertical infrarational/unconscious, there are six main modalities, the infrarational collective, the worldly collective, the spiritual collective, the infrarational individual, the worldly individual, and the spiritual individual.

Looking at it in evolutionary terms, you could draw an arrow from the lower left to the upper right ↗, plotting man's movement from a primitive infrarational collective with no individuation, to a culture capable of nurturing and sustaining the saint, the sage, and the creative genius of whatever type.

This is the identical arrow that would apply to one's own personal development, as we all start out fused with the environment, learn to become relatively rational individuals (at least in the modern West), and then continue developing into the post-egoic planes of spirit. Of course, there is much overlap, and the process is not actually linear. And there are obviously fixations, arrests, and regressions. But give me a break. This is a map, not the territory. Plus, it's not that easy to plot hyperspace in two dimensions.

Now, how does this apply to Lincoln? I don't know. Let's find out, shall we?

While revering the ideal that all men are created equal, Lincoln would have been the first to acknowledge that not only do Great Men exist -- men whose gifts far exceed the average -- but that these men are often responsible for the forward movement of history, i.e., progress. America's founders would be prima facie examples of this. The problem is how to reconcile human greatness with the leveling tendencies of democracy, which can result in a tyranny of the mediocre, whereby the lion is treated the same as the lamb, and forced to eat grass.

I believe that this was one of Schuon's main objections to democracy. Not only did he feel that it undermined human excellence, but that it did so inevitably. I certainly appreciate his concerns, as do all conservatives. Indeed, one merely has to draw a descending line from Lincoln to Obama to understand his point. At the same time, however, you could say that this collective "longing for heroic greatness" is what ushered in Hitler. If we want to cut a Heidegger (and so many other fascism-loving liberals) some slack -- which I don't -- I believe that this might have been a big part of his motivation in embracing nazism.

There's nothing wrong with embracing the heroic per se, so long as it is in service to the proper ideals. The problem, of course, is distinguishing the narcissistic tyrant from the self-transcending statesman. There is an infinite difference between a Churchill and a Hitler or even a Reagan and an Obama. Man has an innate need to revere what is superior, so we have to be exceedingly careful that the object is actually worthy of our reverence.

Just yesterday, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill creating a special day of commemoration for Harvey Milk. Why? Why force the population to revere someone so eminently unworthy of reverence?

It is the very converse of Lincoln's concern. Democracy can not only create mediocrity, but then enforce it with the authority of the state. The Milk Day is just a trivial example, but more pervasively destructive examples can easily be found. For example, in California, it is actually against the law for a public school textbook to depict any human group (in reality, any victim-group as defined by the left) in an unfavorable light. Thus, children must be systematically lied to, and then forced to place human greatness on the same plane as human depravity.

But it's actually even worse than that, for the real point is to undermine Western civilization and to place it on a lower plane than the rest of the world, e.g., Columbus below the native Americans.

Watson discusses Lincoln's concern with how we might "take account of the passions of the few -- those especially talented and ambitious individuals who exist in most regimes and belong to 'the family of the lion and the tribe of the eagle.'"

If someone is great and knows it, why shouldn't his will become law? Why should he have to put up with a bunch of dittoheaded creationist bitter-clingers? Why can't the people responsible for our problems just get out of the way? Can't we just shut down Fox News, the only TV network holding state power to account?

"As the threat from the mob came from below, so this threat comes from above. These 'lions' and 'eagles' feed on the lesser animals in a reflection of natural hierarchy. The implication is that the rule of such individuals is by natural right, unlike the rule of the mob" (Watson). The great man "thirsts and burns for distinction" and "will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves of enslaving freemen."

This is why the left always longs for a secular savior such as Obama. The leftist leader requires the led, but a special kind of led; the last thing he wants is a nation of spiritually awakened upper right quadrant individuals, because they cannot be led by the likes of Obama. Therefore, all of his policies will be geared toward creating more dependence, more passivity, more autohypnosis -- in short, people of the lower left. They are the ones who can be led by the nose and relied upon to support the powerful autocrat who promises to take care of them.

To "reduce the threat from above," the "greatest and most ambitious minds" must be inculcated in the values of the Founders and "in the renewal of the republic rather than its subversion." It is absolutely no coincidence that Obama -- and all similar elites whose values are at cross-purposes with the Founders -- holds America in such low esteem. The two attitudes go together. In order for the left to achieve its ambitions, it must first carry out a sustained assault on the past, on history, and on our traditions, since who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past. To create Harvey Milk Day is ultimately the attempt to control the past, present, and future of marriage, the very foundation of civilization.

Great men want to be revered. And they should be. This is why it was a mistake to eliminate the federal holidays of Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays, and replace them with "Presidents' Day." Yes, it might again seem like a trivial thing, but what could be more radical than forcing children to put a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton on the same plane as a Washington or Lincoln? It's not just confusing, but diabolical, for it inverts the values required both for the nation's birth and its survival, i.e., rebirth -- a rebirth that must recur with each generation of potential citizens or serfs, individuals or drones, makers or takers.

To be continued....