Sunday, July 21, 2013

Time and Relevance

Modern naturalism "derives" from scientific revolutionaries, but so did the Third Reich, The Monkees, and Weight Watchers. That kind of derivation is not very meaningful.

When I say that modern naturalism derives from fiscal overlords, what I mean is that it bases all of the evidence, on which the naturalist draws her conclusions about the world, upon the scientific consensuses that were paid for, disseminated, and supported by the plutocrats many naturalists so regularly decry.

This philosophy may be accurate. However, it rests only on the world that the reigning powers of the naturalist's day--the international financial elites who control world governments, corporations, armies, police forces, entertainment, science, education, public opinion, etc.--have described. All those studies, institutions, books, articles, childhood classes, and answers from your parents came from that information; from those sources.

Can you accept that, oh naturalist? The Democratic Party of the United States, for example, fosters evolution by natural selection and the Big Bang, thereby supplying the answers to the most profound questions about our existence, and the existence of the entire universe. The most fundamental claims about matter, reality, and consciousness rest upon the scientific conclusions of the industrial and post-industrial tyrant states, and it is from those conclusions that the naturalist takes the next steps.

When these elites' conclusions are challenged, they make themselves out to be rebels, because their new conclusions have claimed to be the successors of mild, bourgeois rebels now hundreds of years dead. This is untrue; the impoverished Jesus may have been a rebel in his day, but the later, Christianized Roman Empire had no claim to any legacy of "Christian rebellion" against authority, empire, religious conformity, poverty, et cetera--even if they had the biggest churches and the most golden crosses.

Similarly, the technocrats of today claim that they are rebels because they call themselves "scientists," and some rebels in the past also called themselves scientists. Galileo, though, offending the most powerful men in the world by insisting upon observational evidence, bears no resemblance to the educational megacorporations that drug "hyperactive" workers, sweep the citizenry with radioactive fields, and dismiss debate as a pointless exercise.

The seeds of the next phase's horror wait inside the hopeless narratives of those who now slaughter children.


  1. I was lately looking to find well-reasoned explanations of why the GDR collapsed. While there are some such explanations to be found, I was struck by the unspoken bias in favor of attributing historical events to people and institutions of authority as opposed to attributing these events to more nuanced causes such as economic malaise and/or bureaucratic rot.

    The feeling I got from reading these histories was that most historical narrative assumes as legitimate, and takes as its point of departure, a hierarchical paradigm of human relations whereby meaning itself tends to be derived from the upper echelons of those social hierarchies.

    Even so-called alternative historians (e.g., Zinn) make this basic assumption, albeit presenting their versions of history in terms of being opposed to society's upper strata rather than calling into question the hierarchies themselves as the primary causes of historical events.

    Both forms of history-telling function primarily to give legitimacy to power structures as they're presently configured. The telling of an objective historical narrative appears to be an unwitting secondary concern.

    1. The first thing we'd need to write a better history is a dating system that derives from something other than Christianity or state formation.

      Divorcing historical narratives from rulers is difficult not only for rulers, but for rebels, because it would suggest that rulers were not--for good or for ill--defining history. That would imply a source of agency (or consciousness, if you prefer) to something more than humans, which implication would be a grave sin for most western rebels.

  2. kind of interesting. the other day, i gave unsolicited advice--compare your (not yours, but the advicee's) statement of alleged social/cultural values with your actual behavior (in mundane activities--i.e., circumstances that you actually encounter [vs. imagined, hypothetical, world-saving scenarios]).

    why i think this relates to what you (you) are writing about: the one doesn't rely on third party propounded "facts" for verification--it relies "merely" (because i supposed it could be a tall order) on an honest assessment of/reflection on one's own actions/conduct/calculations.

    1. The idea that we should look to ourselves for our own edification is a difficult one to suggest, because most adults come pre-loaded with fatuous, narcissist strawmen who supposedly do so things out of an interest in one's own appearance, or who break down in tears at the sight of a waterfall or sunrise. While we wouldn't want to become such a strawman, a willingness to be more conscious of our own actions, and their direct impact upon our surroundings or the world at large--would certainly be contrary to what the better part of us are preaching.

  3. What are the next phase and its horror? Microchipped half people embodying the
    Ediocre visions of odious middle class strivers?

    1. Are we not already half-people, as it were? Would microchips really make all this cheaper?

      I expect they think it would, which is why the next phase will catch the next lords something by surprise (not necessarily the being-overthrown kind of surprise; just the "indignant at having to deal with this" kind).