Don Quixote sets out alone as a man, a traveling knight, who in the spirit of the tale of chivalry wants to help the humble to what is their right…. Since he departs alone, the matter turns out relatively well, because when he comes to this famous inn and wants to be dubbed knight there, the innkeeper and his staff enter into Don Quixote’s tomfoolery and play the dubbing of a knight with him…. Then he returns home highly satisfied. [It] goes relatively well, as long as he is alone and others benevolently enter into the tomfoolery. So let the buffoon go; he is a buffoon!
Eric Voegelin, “Hitler and the Germans”
Voegelin’s discourse on Don Quixote appears in a book titled Hitler and the Germans. This is no accident, for Hitler was Germany’s buffoon – posing as Germany’s savior. Buffoonish antics, in history, often entail serious consequences. Today we have a new set of buffoons, on the left and on the right. Therefore, nobody should be caught off guard by what is coming. But they will be caught of guard for the very simple reason that they have not been paying close attention. Everything “goes relatively well,” wrote Voegelin, “as long as … others benevolently enter into the tomfoolery.” We are beyond that now. Others are not “benevolently” entering into it. Quite the opposite.
When Don Quixote acquires Sancho Panza as a squire, Voegelin tells us that a “conversation” develops; for when Quixote goes off to fight windmills, Sancho warns him to be careful as they are only windmills and not giants. What does Don Quixote say to this? He basically drags Sancho Panza with him, and Sancho ends up joining in the madness. Why join in the madness? One might ask why the German people followed Hitler, or why various politicians in the United States, who are buffoons, are likewise followed? Over time the politician (as buffoon) draws people into his false reality. The very act of following a buffoon, and of being entertained by him, triggers a process akin to seduction. “He really is entertaining,” they say in the beginning. Then, after the passage of time, the public begins to believe in him; and they even vote for him.
There is a story I heard from a psychologist years ago. It was about a clinician who was treating a delusional patient immersed in an imaginary galactic empire. The psychologist began to enjoy his sessions with this imaginative patient; for the imaginary galactic empire was full of fascinating people and adventures. Over time the psychologist began to believe in his patient’s delusions; that is, until one day the patient announced that he was cured, thanked the doctor, and discontinued the treatment. The psychologist was devastated, for he had fallen into the delusion himself.
According to Voegelin, moral decline reflects a certain boredom with reality. This boredom, wrote Voegelin, produces a readiness “to fall in with a second reality … of a revolutionary type and … join in the intellectual playing … because it’s fun.” [p.242-243] So what you have in the case of Hitler and the Germans, or Karl Marx and the left, is a madman who devises an alternate reality (through a new way of political talking or writing); then, you get a host of people who prefer the false reality to real reality. In fact, says Voegelin, people readily become infatuated with the tomfoolery of the make-believe. In that case, the buffoon is no longer a buffoon. He then becomes venerated, if not worshipped.
What happens to the truth when the buffoon is believed, when the buffoon is trusted, when the buffoon rules the world (or America)? What then happens to the man who cares about the truth? Behind closed doors, the cynic says to the truthful man, “Your concern for truth is academic. This is politics, which depends entirely on lies. We rule the people with lies because the people will not believe in the truth. We even tell lies to our bosses in government because our bosses would dismiss us if we told them the truth. Besides, lies are more expedient for saving the country. If you told the truth, nobody would follow you and nobody would ever hire you. The truth has nothing to do with anything.”
This argument has been directly made – to me. It was made by a well-respected person with a long history of government service. It reflects the most fantastic fantasy of all. Here we find the highest level of madness. In Miguel de Cervantes book, Don Quixote, the buffoonish hero makes similar arguments. For example, he argues that if enough people believe in his tomfoolery, then this will nonetheless become the dominant social reality.
Voegelin added, “and whoever criticizes [this tomfoolery] … must then be punished.” This leads to Don Quixote’s second argument for a falsification of reality: “Books which are being printed by royal license and with the approval of those to whom they are submitted, and which are read with universal delight and applause by the great and small, poor and rich, learned and ignorant, plebians and gentlefolk – could they be lies and at the same time appear so much like the truth?”
In other words, if a lie succeeds, then who is left to say it is a lie? If a buffoon can mesmerize a crowd, and win that crowd to his buffoonery, and get them to participate in it, then the buffoon can become an authority in his own right. Voegelin noted: “Thus you have the condition of a totalitarian regime – where determinate ideologies are prescribed and propagated to those under subjection to the state, and which must therefore be OK.”
The allusions to Hitler throughout Voegelin’s text, are obvious; but we might plug any homespun American demagogue into that template. All the mad ideas we see prevailing today, from global warming and a jab in every arm, to narratives opposed to an honest election audit, are framed by lies. The same mendacity also attends the right-wingers – the Q-tards, the conspiracy freaks, the neo-Nazis, and even those who think Donald Trump is the Second Coming or that Mike Lindell has “Absolute Proof.”
Are you angry with me now? If you want to go mad directly, there are plenty of ways to get there. Jump on any bandwagon and say goodbye to your sanity. The argument of Don Quixote, that his lie is noble and everyone therefore must believe, is the usual argument heard behind closed doors. According to Voegelin, “Don Quixote is no longer acting in good faith but, within his tomfoolery, consciously begins to lie.” [p. 245]
Once we participate in a lie we are forced to participate in its logic; and this logic always brings us to a paradox; for every lie is paradoxical from the standpoint of truth and reality, forcing man to adopt a faulty way of reasoning to get past the truth. We see this in all totalitarian regimes (e.g., in how they justify mass murder, or in the way they mock honesty). When a false reality is taken as real, language itself is corrupted, logic is corrupted, thinking is corrupted. Words are then used to distort reality rather than to clarify it – as we saw in General Mark Milley’s recent remarks before Congress. Oh yes! Milley referred to the break-in at Capitol Hill on January 6 as an assault by “thousands” to “overthrow the Constitution” because of “white rage.” General Milley, in that ugly outburst, gave himself away as a dangerous fantasist. According to Voegelin, “when loss of reality and lack of contact with reality occur … certain problems … of … paradox appear….” This is by no means a phenomenon of the left only – as noted earlier. One of the symptoms of this crisis is that words no longer signify realities, but refer to unrealities: “social justice,” “equality,” “white privilege,” “climate change,” “sexism,” “socialism.”
The breakdown of contact with reality – with the inner reality of the spiritual life – leads to a disintegrative process. It is not reality that disintegrates, but the fantasist. A loss of personality, of authenticity, of creativity, of clarity, occurs. Here we find the roots of modern narcissism. As some psychologists have asserted, narcissism is the “denial of the true self.” Voegelin pointed out, “If man doesn’t love this core, and thus his own self, he has lost contact with reality. This self-love, of course, is not the same as selfishness.”
For love to work, you have to have a self. That is why, the very apocalypse of Dr. Carl Jung was titled Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Here we find chapters on the ego, the shadow, the anima and animus, the sign of the fishes, the prophecies of Nostradamus, together with an inquiry into evil. Here the struggle against disintegration, against dissolution, against mankind’s destruction, is seen as epochal. [p. 164]
Yet here we find a paradox within the truth. Jung held that it was “extremely important to tell children fairytales and legends, and to inculcate religious ideas (dogmas) into grown-ups, because these things are instrumental symbols with whose help unconscious contents can be canalized into consciousness…. Failing this, their energy flows off into conscious contents which, normally, are not much emphasized, and intensifies them to pathological proportions. We then get apparently groundless phobias and obsessions – crazes, idiosyncrasies, hypochondriac ideas, and intellectual perversions suitably camouflaged in social, religious, or political garb.” [ p. 169]
How can this be?
The center of our being – our soul – does not lie in the ego, said Jung, “but outside it.” That which is true to reality, that which is authentic, does not flow from the despair and self-loathing of a distended ego. It is not self-hating and neurotic, like General Milley. His denunciation of the “racist insurrection” of January 6 is all ego, all ambition, all theater, all grandstanding. Milley is not a general. Milley is an actor. As such, he does not see off-stage; for the stage-lights are in his eyes.
As Voegelin emphasized, blindness toward reality is at the core of it all. The blind want, in Voegelin’s words, “to force something through somewhere, for example, a revolution. As a result, other people fall under the wheels, with disastrous consequences.” [ p. 253] Voegelin pointed to the work of the Austrian novelist, Heimito von Doderer and his novel The Demons. The possessed are not merely demonic. They are imbecilic. Doderer shows that one must not have “discussions with imbecility.” As Voegelin put it, “Faced with a corrupt society, all that’s possible is the boycott – the refusal to get involved with it – or its adequate representation in literature, that is, the transmogrification of imbecility into farce (which is not the same as satire).” [p. 256]
To indulge in satire for a moment, let us paraphrase Karl Kraus on Hitler vis-à-vis Mark Milley: “I can’t think of a thing to say about Milley.” Imagine if George Washington came back from the dead and strolled into the Pentagon. How would he behave toward “General” Milley? Can we imagine Washington speaking to Milley? Can we imagine him speaking of Milley? The mind reels at any juxtaposition of George Washington and Mark Milley. You cannot put them in the same room. You cannot have the one uttering the name of the other. No. George Washington would not condescend to a uniformed obscenity. Imagine Washington’s sarcasm if he ever deigned to speak to such a person: “Yes, General Milley, all white people are racists if you say so! – you crawling, cringing, toady!”
Self-loathing imbecility in a skin-sack must be held far from one’s nose. Doderer characterized a person of this type as “someone who wants to change the general situation because of the impossibility or untenability of his own position….” Doderer further stated, “A person who has been unable to endure himself becomes a revolutionary; then it is others who have to endure him.”
I once listened to a schizophrenic describe the joy of torturing cats to death, and in the next breath he lamented being barred from purchasing a handgun. As I lived in a small town, I had a conversation with the chief of police the next day. How much more justified are we to warn the chief of police about our psychologically disturbed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – General Mark Milley?
But Milley is only one madman out of many. And then there is that imbecile in the White House. How would George Washington address him? Doderer said there can be no “discussions with imbecility.” Voegelin wrote, “If the second [false] reality becomes dominant in a society, there is indeed … a community made up of members of that society. But such a society perpetrates the highest betrayal of humanity. And in this kind of society anyone who is not alienated from the first [real] reality can only commit high treason.” In other words, in a mad world the sane man is traitor.
Of course, the world is not entirely one thing or the other. The world is a mix of sanity and madness. As of this writing the world has tipped into madness; and many a madman are out there, telling you they have the answer, or they have the truth. Indeed, you should not believe in them; and you should not to be disappointed at their apparent fraudulence. Perhaps they were, as Don Quixote – unwitting frauds, sincere in their buffoonery. Yet they are all the more dangerous for being sincere.
Keep your head, if you can. It is going to be a wild ride.
Quarterly Subscription (voluntary)
JRNyquist.blog
$15.00
Notes and Links
Eric Voegelin, translated by Detlev Clemens and Brendan Purcell, Hitler and the Germans (University of Missouri Press, 1999).
Carl Jung, translated by R.F.C. Hull, Aion: Researches Into the Phenomenology of the Self (Princeton University Press, 1979).
281 responses to “Political Insanity, Part II: From Don Quixote to Mark Milley”
Believe it or not, I’m called a Don Quixote because I want to take down CCP. Great piece, once again, thank you sir.
Wunderbar, Jeff! I love how fiery and how passionate your writings are.
Jeff, not sure if you can comment, I was at a conservative gathering today in Wellington attended by a lot of people from the New Zealand Conservative political community. I was invited to speak on the Hong Kong issue, when I spoke on the issue of Chinese Communist Party controlled opposition at work from 1997 to 2019 which was obvious during the Hong Kong Protest in 2019 and individuals and groups like the Hong Kong Democratic Party, Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, Joey Siu, Sunny Cheung, Martin Lee, Szeto Wah and etc. At the end of the presentation when I asked if anyone had any questions. I also showed them the article from the first interview with the Hong Kong Independence Party. Many people who attended were in shock and responded by saying that the groups and individuals mentioned are against the Chinese Communist Party and want democracy in Hong Kong and it is a conspiracy theory that the individuals mentioned are involved or have any contact with the Chinese Communist Party. The overall reaction from the room was shock, anger and denial and when I responded to the people who attended that if they asked the Hong Kong Independence Party and their members about the Hong Kong Democratic Party, Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, Joey Siu, Sunny Cheung, Martin Lee, Szeto Wah and etc being part of the Chinese Communist Party controlled opposition scheme, the Hong Kong Independence Party members would also tell them the same thing, at the end many people who attended the event told me the Chinese Communist Party are not capable of Controlled Opposition tactics.
Anyone who told you that is either stupid or an agent of the CCP.
Jeff and Nevin not sure if you can comment, it seems clear to me when I was doing the presentation to the New Zealand conservatives who were at the event which they invited me to speak on the Hong Kong issue. I mention to them that in order to understand the Hong Kong issue, there must be an understanding on controlled opposition as both the Chinese and Russian communists have used this technique very efficiently. I also mentioned Anatoliy Golitsyn the author of Perestroika Deception and New Lies for Old also warn about Controlled Opposition. The response from the New Zealand conservatives which I got after I spoke about Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, Martine Lee, Sunny Cheung, Szeto Wah and the Hong Kong Democracy Movement working for the Chinese Communist Party is ‘conspiracy level information which amounts to paranoia’.
This is a common reaction, which is grounded in laziness.
I will add a note on the creepiness of conservatives wanting to be and look nice/proper. A psychologist once mentioned his fantasy of being like the good Doctor Boileau in one of Joseph Kessel’s book. Here we have the Marxist who has fantasies of being the biggest negative/hater vs the foolish yet no less creepy and reckless conservative in his “goodness and godliness neurosis”, forgetting that God does get angry. In that respect it seems corrupt conservatives lean with communists in justifying communist negativism since God is viewed then as the biggest hater… This is why unconsciously we let antifa run amok, making this mental illness symptom of killing and looting fine for them and justified.
But this psychologist once reconciled himself with his own anger and “badness”, improper behavior, because he figured that anger in a controlled and channeled manner is quite apt at producing abilities to think and to think the world! As JRN says, these people who reject evidence of Chinese infiltration are stupid because they are not angry enough to produce proper thinking. To wit the communist cultivates an anger, a drama, an artificial one, to feel alive, to produce thought of his own.
It can only be that a communist Chinese penetrates dissident movements and manipulates events, because in order to artificially raise anger, you have to stage an angry situation where you have the privilege to imagine being offended – from reason of using the wrong pronoun to war provocations where nukes will be used to both manifest and continue creating grief about life, the creation and God.
What conspiracy? Is it so bad to show the communists have the initiative in HK because they create and control the drama there to their anger recruiting and artificial thought forming?
So we have fools who are allowed to get angry for no cause and even more foolish right wingers who dwell in this creepy nihilism of being nice and thereby destroying thought, making it illegal and forming the crushing form of censorship which is self censorship. At this point it is like two pees in a pod of toxic relationship between shrew hater communists and hysteric self hating conservatives, so called.
Are you from Hong Kong?
Mic Mac
I recognise the writing style, by any chance are you Singamelamed from the Final Phase Forums?
Tell them about Operation Trust under Lenin and his Cheka.
I had a conversation with them on it.
To think the CCP is not capable of such conspiracy is most inane. In fact, it is a projection accusation indeed, as JRN implies. It is simple and not personal, after all, for a communist to wish to attain a commanding podium at every institution of intellectuality, employing the Will to Power.
In fact it is one of the cultivation of Marxists, which is to have this nerdy mechanical non-personal dialectic about Deleuze Machines and “Woman-Becoming” and other “Rhyzomic” explanation of Barbarian inherent tendency to interconnectedness when in its mediocrity. But now and then you see a Walter Benjamin let out the cat out of this autistic bag.
When he goes saying quite brilliantly that modern art is not really art, but a conspiracy of technicians to make a good picture thus rendering the need for quality actor moot in the film industry (as opposed to theater where at least the actor must be good in “truth”), one can only indeed see that the concept of Marxist Machine might be a “natural” conspiracy of manifest destiny of itself… But then Walter Benjamin goes on bragging politically correctly that fascism is making art out of war whereas communism is using art for politics… (Concealing that politics really means war when extended).
So, here we go, we see the conservatives so called become complete communists in a naive sense, believing that there cannot exist ulterior motives or Freudian lusts behind the discourses.
As it is, watch what they do, not what they say, look at the feminine audience gushing over them and how they take all advantage of it. As if the Marxist was devoid of vanity like an autistic child. This is most creepy.
Walter Benjamin is creepy in his political correctness and his mask as a mechanic of anti-art in the film industry and politics. What utter vanity to say that fascism is war and communism “politics”. And what if a tyrant like himself might aspire to be both? Isn’t it possible? Is it conspiracy to state what human nature is in its mediocre vanities and proclivities which it euphemistically call love?
No, surely, these conservatives, so called, calling you conspiracist are the ones with power lusts and corresponding conformity to such powers – the barrels coming from Beijing as all roads lead to nuclear Rome in that respect.
During the first months of what the WHO classified as a “pandemic”, I was one morning about to leave my home for work and called, as usual, the elevator. The door opened, and my neighbour from one floor further up stood there, her eyes widened in horror. I wondered what she might have found so threatening, but she spilled out, “But — we’re not supposed to …” (You know: “social distancing”!). I interrupted her with a resigning smile, “Oh yes, we’re not supposed to …” and walked down the staircase instead…
Postscript: Heimito von Doderer wasn’t German. He was born in 1896 in what then was a Western suburb of Vienna; he died in 1966 in Vienna proper; and he was the leading figure of Austrian literature in the 1950s and ’60s.
“In a ‘purebred’ society, every simpleton and brutalist, who has made no progress in life, may at least introduce himself as ‘Aryan’; the same distinction can, in a differently oriented ‘idealism’, consist in being considered as a prolet-Aryan. Here, a supposed communality in race; there, one in terms of class; it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. Classes can turn into races, after all, and vice versa. It has happened before. Here in Vienna, a mere profession has grown into a kind of race: that of the janitor. Every Viennese knows it. In Paris, things are similar.” (Heimito von Doderer, The Demons; translation mine.)
Yes, you are right. He was born and died Austrian. He wrote in German and fought in the German Army during the war because, during those years, Austria was a part of Germany.
Which doesn’t make him a German, sorry to say.
Yes. I actually read his novel, which takes place in Vienna. Somehow, the corner of my mind that knew he wore the uniform of the German Army during the war, took charge in the offending sentence and overrode the other part of my mind that knew he was Viennese. I have corrected my error. Thanks!
Many people admired Hitler and his economic miracle. In fact Great Britain was aligned with him as an ally in the fight against Communism, right up to the Churchill coup. Many saw Churchill as a war mongerer of base moral character in the pocket of the Zionist bankers who were ousted from Germany (for causing the decline that required an economic miracle) and looking for revenge. Hitler’s economic miracle threatened their centuries long dominance in the field of finance and usury, if it had taken hold.
Many agricultural worker in Great Britain were envious of the high standards of living enjoyed by their German cousins, while they toiled in the fields of Norfolk barely able to keeps their families above the poverty line.
Hitler had a very poor understanding of economics. The German standard of living rose much higher — in West Germany — after Hitler and the war. This, despite the leveling of Germany by Allied bombing which Hitler’s war policies provoked.
That may be due more to German work culture, the Marshall plan and the debt cancellation.
Let us not forget the two million Germans murdered in the American death camps from ’45 to ’47 after Morgenthau reclassified their status from POW’s to “Disarmed Enemy Forces” (DEFs). In contrast Allied POW’s were treated well and were given access to red cross, the Germans were denied access to red cross, starved, deprived of sanitation and were left to sleep rough in all weather conditions.
The bombing of civilians was started by Churchill as soon as he came to power, a fact conveniently ignored at the Nuremburg trials.
By 1938 Hitler’s policies had seriously damaged the German economy. Read some economic history. You will see.
http://prism.scholarslab.org/prisms/46a049fe-b2be-11e5-85b4-005056b3784e/visualize?locale=fr
Sorry, John Davies. I pressed “sent” too early. This is about the genesis of the allegedly booming Hitler’s Nazi economy. What that article doesn’t mention was the massive plunder of the wealth of the German Jews, of the oppositionists to the Nazi regime and slave labor that financed his war preparations.
Regards – Bogdan
Excellent article. Yes. By 1938 Hitler had spent himself into a corner and was facing a day of reckoning. Hitler was absolutely clueless when it came to economics. His misconceptions were rooted in his antisemitism. He never bothered to study economics, having no patience for it.
If this is to believed then the Germans faired incredibly well against all odds. A bankrupt nation bringing both the west and the east to their knees? Economic history is written by the winners, that is not ourselves.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161968
So the argument becomes circular.
If you had to choose between Hitler and Stalin…
I would choose Hitler, every time.
Those autobahn are still providing economic benefits nearly 100 years later, Stalin left nothing of any lasting benefit to anyone.
Hitler’s biggest mistake was in invading Poland, should have left that to Stalin and had a united front but he could not guarantee help from the west if he let the communists get so far west as the globalist bankers were out for the kill.
The German victories in 1939-41 were not the result of good economics. They were the result of having a very excellent officer corps, good doctrine, good operational technique and poorly prepared enemies.
Dear John, below is the link to the article dealing with the alleged economic “miracle” in Nazi Germany.
The article just only mentions the massive plunder of the wealth of the German Jews and political opponents to Nazi regime. The third factor was the large scale use of slave labor.
http://prism.scholarslab.org/prisms/46a049fe-b2be-11e5-85b4-005056b3784e/visualize?locale=fr
Regards – Bogdan
Excellent find.
Thank you Bogdan. That regime was an attempt at a pure modern regime devoted to conquest, exploitation,and extermination, worldwide until the whole world was theirs. It had no redeeming qualities, and covert attempts to rehabilitate them are simple reprehensible.
[…] at the JR Nyquist Blog: “Political Insanity, Part II: From Don Quixote to Mark Milley” By JR […]
It is truly troubling what I observe in my surroundings. I know people of both liberal and conservative leanings (if those terms even mean anything anymore) who have latched on to one extremism or another. Whether it is “Orange Man Bad” or “Orange Man is Savior” it seems that most of society has embraced some sort of cult-like worldview or other. Decades ago I had good friends with mutual respect across nearly all stripes of political belief, today I find that even those that I might agree 90% with will quickly distance themselves if I reject even ONE of their dogmas.
From my personal worldview (Christian) it seems the world is more ready to embrace the coming AntiChrist as ‘lord and savior’ of the planet, economy, racism, etc rather than repent and believe in the one and only true hope of mankind -Christ the Lord. Sorry for the religion drift, I know that is not the purpose of this blog and I generally avoid it, but in the current crisis the spiritual battle going on is intimately entwined with what we are observing in the physical realm.
indeed Inspector. totalitarianism is increasing exponentially in all sectors of society because the center has been destroyed. The left blames the police of barbarity but the left is incapable of seeing the same lawless spirit in themselves that they project onto others (which is exactly what Jesus said about the temptation “to pluck the log from another’s eye”). I believe you are correct that as the day of this devilish anti-christ evil draws near, we will see normal men and women and children be stripped of their normalcy and reveal the inner wickedness inside—all the veneer is going to be stripped away. the scripture says that in the end time, “the love of men will grow cold.” We are moving towards dreadful days.
Live not by lies. That will keep us out of both ditches.
Very good!
Yes. But sadly, these days that means being forced to take a partisan side — or at least be perceived to take a partisan side — which itself is exhausting and demoralizing and part of the terrible destructive spiral. For example, I’ve been a democrat most of my life and am surrounded by them. But choose not to take the shot or wear a mask and I’m suddenly alt-right (and all the disparaging associations that come with). Ditto for objecting to censorship. Ditto for reminding the left they never trusted the three-letter agencies prior to the end of 2016.
Falsified reality also means there is little in this world to cling to for consolation, like the quaint notion that “truth will out.” No, it will not. If the lie succeeds, who is left to say it is a lie?
Man, I really live with that daily. If you watched in real time as a presidency was spied upon and undermined by its own government — all the while gaslighted, even as the truth was out there in broad daylight — it’s not hard to believe an election may have been stolen, or a pandemic response manipulated to consolidate control among the corrupt. But if you see the current government as restoration of sanity and stability after an aberrational nightmare, it’s much harder to see its current machinations. And that’s whom I’m surrounded by. Speaking the truth is immediately alienating. All the time.
It has brought me closer to God. My real lament is that I am not doing more. I pray for the ability to discern the best actions and the courage to take them.
Congratulations on keeping your sanity. Maybe by working through everything, rehashing it, an answer will appear. (I hope.)
Je ff, you wrote, “As of this writing the world has tipped into madness; and many a madman are out there, telling you they have the answer, or they have the truth. Indeed, you should not believe in them; and you should not to be disappointed at their apparent fraudulence.”
But you need to have “the Truth” in order to recognize the fraud and madness. The question comes up, how does one recognize “the Truth” in order to recognize the fraud and madness? This becomes more important for people who don’t have the time to read many books. Which books are worth the limited time available, and which are to be passed over?
The answer that I trust for what is “the Truth” is the Bible. In the words of Francis Schaeffer, it gives “true truth, but not exhaustive truth”. For a scientist, it gives the philosophic basis of modern science (not the “science” widely practice in our post-modern age) but not all the details that can be discovered by the scientific method. For a historian, it gives an outline, focussing on important events, but leaving out many details. We need accurately to understand what it says in order to apply it to our lives and understanding of the world. In order to understand it, we need to read it, reread it because we forget, reread it again, continuously. And don’t trust the theologians without checking them against the Bible, especially those who bring in new teachings.
Unfortunately, most people who call themselves Christian, have not read the Bible, not even once. Instead they listen to theologians. How many of the theologians are fraudsters?
As one who has not time to read many books, that forces me to rely on secondary sources to provide the outlines, like Cliff Notes. For example, after reading in “America, the Sorcerer’s New Apprentice: The Rise of New Age Shamanism” by Dave Hunt, the description of Carl Jung and his reliance on a familiar spirit (demon) for much of his writing and teaching, seeing as that is condemned in the Bible, I haven’t bothered to read Jung. He is one of the fraudsters. I had seen enough from several sources tying Freud to Hinduism, so again I pass him by.
No, you don’t make me angry by contradicting things I had previously thought were accurate. I’m disappointed, because I trusted people who turned out to be frauds, but I want the truth even when it disappoints.
So the question remains, how do we recognize “the Truth”?
Jung had some peculiar ideas, but there are valuable insights in his later books. I would not call him a fraudster. Reliance on a familiar spirit? Jung went through a pagan phase. Later, in old age, he spoke of being a Christian, of the importance of returning to Christianity. I quote from his later works. If you study him you will find that he was writing in a peculiar academic jargon which, at times, is maddeningly belabored and unclear. What is important in his psychology was the recognition of a rising evil in the soul of the individual that paralleled the rise of totalitarianism. Like Jordan Peterson, I find some of Jung’s insights relevant to an understanding of our society’s wider insanity.
And just to give one example, no Christian, particularly one who understands St. Paul and Christian Soteriology, should be so quick to reject Jung completely, given his thoughts on biological/spiritual inheritance of acquired parental traits.
With God’s help, I read several chapters a day in God’s Word. and pray. He keeps me sane in the ever increasing madness of this world. It comforts me to know that Christ, the Son of the living God, is going to bring justice in the end. And it will be so swift when it comes, so certain, so final, that I suspect we may even feel a twinge of pity for those who will not submit to Him.
Thankfully, I havent had to live the lie of wearing masks, and pretending we are being ravaged by a pandemic. My gut wouldnt let me by into the Q stuff, though I have a friend whoI think believes every word of it. He actually believes this inflation is because the value of our money is about to be reset to 1950s value or some such nonsense, and we are just being allowed to see what the dollar is truly worth before this re-valuing takes place. This yea .
He gave me something like three different dates that the mighty Trump was supposed to come back into office. I finally told him that if the last date he gave me didnt come true, he was going to have to admit that Q was a bunch of bull. But he continues to believe it.
It makes me just about sick to see him believe this mess, because he is a very intelligent man, and a hard worker with many skills. How can he buy into it?
I never saw crazy about Trump. I was glad we got him instead of Hillary. But sometimes I wonder if Trump is/was being used to draw out Patriots so they could be more easily identified and dealt with when the time comes. Look how many people took beatings to go to his rallies. Look how many are currently being held in prison for noyhing more than entering and walking through the Capitol. Trump invited people there. Trump gave a speech to add to people’s ardor. I dont trust the man 100%
All we can do is keep our eyes on Jesus, take one day at a time, and do what we reasonably can to prepare to defend and take care of ourselves and our families.
Excellent article as always, Mr. Nyquist. Thank you for the good work.
To grasp the truth, I would recommend a more critical evaluation of the work of Dave Hunt. He is a vicious Anti-Catholic for one thing (I am theologically opposed to the Papal church, but Hunt is against any apostolic/liturgical/sacramental Christianity altogether), and has the temerity or naivete to use the discredited Alexander Hislop in what passes for his research. Hunt doesn’t understand Carl Jung at all, either.
I have read a little about him. He seems to have a narrow understanding of certain subjects.
R. O.: You might like The Devil and Karl Marx by Paul Kengor. He dives deep into the relation between the two and how it relates to what we are seeing in society today and is very practical in his analysis. There is way too much hidden evil going on in many of the major corporate religions and he shows how it works. My wife and I are quite shocked by how our Lutheran church is preaching more about BLM than Christ these days, and looking for another one that is not teaching lies.
I read Was Karl Marx a Satanist by Richard Wurmbrand. He quoted Marx in statements that clearly indicate Satan worship as well as the wreck that was his life. Marx was such a seething mass of hatred that he was also a major antisemite in his generation, despite being Jewish himself. He was a major influencer for Hitler and the Nazis in both his antisemitism and socialism, as well as for communism and its antisemitism.
I also read of an evil teaching that was based on evolution, yet predates Charles Darwin. Unfortunately that book was written in German and never translated into English. That teaching was started in the German state church. That teaching is known by several names, including JEPD Theory, Higher Criticism, Documentary Hypothesis, and what else?
As for the Lutheran church, I being a Lutheran myself, I have some knowledge of what’s going on. The ELCA has almost totally abandoned Christianity itself. If you are a member of an ELCA church, leave. The LCMS is a mixed bag. Many congregations are very good, others avoid. It had a problem with a group that called itself Seminex who are heretics who left the church. Many of their supporters didn’t leave with Seminex, instead slunk back into the woodwork where they, as termites, eat away at the church. Two smaller groups, ELS and WELS, are probably the best places to find a home church.
Wurmbrand qualified the question of Marx’s Satanism on the authenticity of one source. He admitted that he could never find the book which made these claims about Marx. I found the book — a battered old copy at the UC Irvine University library. The book used as a source for these claims was written by someone who was mentally ill or they were mimicking a mentally ill person. The alleged encounter with Marx’s maid, Helen Demuth, took place after her death — an obvious fabrication. This means the evidence for actual Satanic practice by Marx is worthless. One must always check more closely the source of claims.
Wurbrand’s main claims were based on Marx’ own writings and actions, and how they reveal ties to satanism. The book to which you refer was basically a footnote.
But Wurmbrand himself says this footnote is decisive.
Oh my gosh such a great post! It made me realize that even though I understand the enemy, at least in part, I am still going along to get along, like wearing my mask when businesses tell me to do so. This article woke me up to that, so thank you. And no more will I support businesses that require mask wearing. Thank you.
“Keep your head, if you can. It is going to be a wild ride.”
I wish I shared your “optimism.”
My best advice. pray more, worry less.
“This will go south one hundred times faster than anyone has predicted.”
“And save two.”
God has been gracious towards America because of the righteous deeds of the nation, concern for the world’s poor and hungry, and missionary evangelism, but ultimately a line gets crossed when water erodes underneath an earthen dam, collapse comes swiftly…the word “exponential” comes to mind. Pray for our miracle.
My optimism?
BC, before covid, I still figured there was some way we would pull out of this nose dive.
AC, or after covid, I realize it was basically hopeless all along.
I don’t know where we crossed over from hopeful to hopeless, but we have.
Once again, I offer my congratulations, you were exactly flipping’ right.
Thank you, Mr. Nyquist, for your recommendations about Xenophon’s writing 🙂 You also mentioned Thucydides; I read “The History of the Peloponessian War” for a book club a few years back. I found it really interesting. I still have the book; I should give it a reread.
Just out of curiosity, Mr. Nyquist, when you spoke to these foreign “defectors,” did you speak to them in English or in their own languages?
In English.
Jeff, your truth remains visible through the fog. I thank you for your decades of steadfast service to bringing hidden realities to your readers (unfortunately there are too few of us who are able to make the type of impact that has been needed).
The global delusional madness is indeed traced back to the population being trained up to be repelled by truth … to hate kindness and love … to only feel and not think.
The deep void and lack of high level inspirational leadership out there leaves billions of our fellow travelers with but a reverberating echo chamber of mind-pulsing turbulence.
The time is obviously perfect for the beast to strike a single sweeping chord that will ring resoundingly similar to true (but of course will be the ultimate deception).
I see our strategic decline. It is connected to our moral and intellectual decline. Someone here wants me to do something about it — something “kinetic.” The only thing to do is to oppose the madness one madman at a time.
There are those conservatives, including some in the media, like Laura Ingraham of Fox News, who say, “Yeah, we’ll turn the tide in 2022 & 2024! Just wait until the Liberals see!” With the conditions in the United States the way they are now, this comes across as rather glib, I believe.
Even if Republicans manage to add seats in both chambers in the 2022 mid-terms; and even if a Republican president is to, by some miracle, take office starting in 2024, the victory would be Pyrrhic. A Democratic super-majority in Congress, with a rubber-stamp agenda, seems inevitable, I am sorry to say.
The overall course of degeneration must be taken into account. People like Ingraham talk and act as if common sense and honesty always win. There are many negative factors that we are failing to acknowledge and deal with. Something good may happen, but not if you fail to confront the bad
Strategic and thus moral and intellectual decline is broad,and not limited to the West. But, much of the problem has it’s origins in the West, with Modernism.
“Modernism” may not be purely Western. It refers, I think, to the advent of materialism, to its despair, to its second reality. Modernism — in its negative sense — conveys the inverted value system of materialism. That system of thought and action has a long history in China. In a sense, modernism is Chinafication — figuratively and now, in the end, literally.
@JRNyquist: Yes, that cockeyed optimism of Laura Ingraham often gets on my nerves. A lot of the news that she delivers is so depressing and so maddening, however, that, as a result, I have become more tolerant of her idealistic tone.
In this discussion, should there not be a more concise use of language? In particular, the use of the term “modernism”? It’s used to cover such a wide range of beliefs and attitudes that it is basically undefined.
In my training as a scientist, modern science had its birth in the Reformation. It was a spiritual movement based on how one reads the Bible. While it drew on ideas also present in medieval and Renaissance philosophy, it was the Reformation that gave the pieces of the puzzle to give the whole picture. As such, modernism was a very spiritual movement. It did not contradict the Bible, because it was based on the Bible.
However, you, and Vladimir especially, are calling the revolt against modernism with the same term “modernism”. This is the opposite movement. Its purpose is to remove the divine from nature, including human nature. Charles Darwin was part of that revolt against modernism. I’ve heard many call this revolt against modernism “post-modernism”.
For some, post-modernism = materialism. For others—mysticism. Still others—pantheism. Post-modernism is giving the negative effects that you decry.
Part of communism is a degradation of the language, so that one is not sure what is meant. So we can expect our foes to use language in a sloppy manner. But shouldn’t we be careful in our use of language?
The revolt against modernism? I do not remember referring to that as modernism.
If modernism came about through the Reformation, what do you call the present age that rejects and even fights against the Reformation? What do you mean by “modernism” in your message from July 18 at 12:50 PM?
The Reformation was a rejection of the ideals of the Renaissance, therefore can’t be called a continuation of the Renaissance. Many of the concepts that we associate with modernism came about through the Reformation. I’ve noticed that when modernism is rejected, even fought against, that the result seems to be a throwback to an earlier ideology not unlike what has been practiced not only in China, but also India and even ancient Greece. What then do you call the present age that rejects modernism?
I do not think the present age rejects modernism. And I do not equate modernism with the Reformation, though the Reformation opened the way to modernity. Much in history is about unintended consequences. Modernity is the present age — and all talk of post modernism is bunk. We are still in an age of the rationalization of authority, materialism and scientism.
The Renaissance resembled modernity more than the Reformation. The thoughts and events of these eras definitely contributed to modernity, but as early phases. Insofar as the Reformation broke with Mother Church, a new trend began — of men rejecting authority in favor of their own reasoning. In that sense it was a stepping stone to where we are today. The rejection of Protestantism for Marxism merely follows the same line of social logic. Here is a continuation of the modern trend. Many things are going on here. Max Weber, the great sociologist characterized his time in terms of “the crisis of modernity.” It is a crisis that occurs, in part, because of the rationalization of authority. Nietzsche described the crisis a little differently, saying that Christianity made men honest, but the newfound “scientific” honesty could no longer believe in God. Thus, he said in his notes, Christianity was ever destined to destroy itself. Jacob Burckhardt saw the crisis in terms the colonization of state and church by the culture — which had broken its bounds through the moneyed power of unckecked plutocracy. He asked if everything was destined to descend into urban money-making, as in America. All these different views are part of a larger picture. There is also the destructive effect of hedonistic market influences, egalitarian democracy, and the abandonment of metaphysics, etc,
@R.O., it would seem to me that your argument is fallacious–I am going to defend Mr. Nyquist here, and I’ll say that his “use of language” is precise and is meticulous. The man is a veteran of many political debates, and so, I’m sure that he knows what he’s doing when he writes and when he makes comments to his readers. To even imply that his “use of language” is “not careful” is, IMO, rather insulting.
Jeff: my argument was more with Vladimir than with you. But it was also because I was taught that “modernism” was connected with the Reformation, and the reigning religio-philosophic thought today is in a reaction against and in opposition to the ideas of the Reformation. Hence “post-modern”. If we want to call today’s culture “modernism”, then what do we call the Reformation?
The Reformation transferred authority from the “mother church” to God alone. This was not a blanket rejection of authority, rather a recognition of which authority they considered legitimate. The legitimate authority was not the “mother church” which they considered heretical.
The modern rejection of authority is foreign to the Reformation. This rejection of authority is also a rejection of the Reformation.
The modern science I was taught in the university was quite limited in what it can study. It cannot tell the past, nor predict the future, and can tell only a thin slice of the present. All the science textbooks I found and science professors I asked at that time were unanimous in their description of what is science and how to recognize it.
Today in many cases we have scientism, a religion, not science the study. This scientism claims that science can answer many questions that science was never designed to answer. Nietzsche was wrong. He dealt not with the “honesty” of science, but with the dishonesty of “scientists” who claimed that they followed science, when they didn’t.
When “scientists” in the 1980s were called out for their dishonesty, they then changed the definition of “science” while claiming that the definition had not been changed.
In closing, the present breakdown of society that we all see happening, with its self-centeredness, rationalization of irrationality, rebellion against authority while worshipping men (movie stars, athletes, politicians, authorities, etc.), plutocracy, amorality, denial of absolutes while attacking those who teach that there are absolutes, the corruption and surrender of churches to present culture, living the comfortable lie instead of seeking the uncomfortable truth, and so forth, is a rebellion not only against the Reformation, but also against the “mother church” that the Reformation rejected. It is also a recipe for disaster.
The way in which you are using the term “modernism” is different than any I have encountered. So you must excuse me if I am taken aback. As modernity begins in 1500 and extends to the present, it encompasses ALL the social phenomena of five hundred years, from Columbus (voyages of discovery) through the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Darwinism, liberalism, communism, Nazism, etc. The concept of modernity involves the common denominator of ALL these. The postmodernists tend to identify modernity with the complex ruling structures that emerged out of liberal capitalism, which include the residual religious structures of the Reformation and counter-Reformation.
Jeff: What I’m trying to do now is to establish a common terminology so that we communicate instead of just talking past each other. Your use of “modernism” differs from anyone I heard before. I question if it’s accurate? So for reasons of communications, I’ll try to use your definition.
As far as modernism in the church, I would argue that you would have to go back to Plotinus and how his neo-Platonism captured the medieval church. Thomas Aquinas with his neo-Aristotelianism was merely a variation on the same theme. Outside the church the Renaissance morphed into the Enlightenment and so on to the present day. All of these share the same underlying theme, differing mainly in surface appearances. But surface appearances are important to that line of philosophy.
The Reformation made a clean break with that line of philosophy. In other words, the Reformation is not part of what you call modernism, not one whit. It was those differences from modernism that led to the development of science. It was those differences that led to other concepts such as universal education, constitutional government, the music of Bach, Händel and other Lutheran composers, and the paintings of the Dutch masters. The underlying way of thinking is different from modernism. For the Reformers, the surface appearances were unimportant, the underlying thought process are what counted. The Reformation is not part of the common denominator because it doesn’t share the same thought processes.
Even though the Reformation was not part of modernism, people living in modernistic societies observed and appreciated some of the fruits of the Reformation, especially the technical fruits brought about by science. Less popular especially among the ruling classes were ideas like constitutional governance and universal education.
I agree with you that the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Darwinism, liberalism, communism, Nazism, etc. are all parts of modernism. But the Reformation, which denies all of those, is not part of modernism.
If everything after 1500 is part of modernity, then the Reformation is part of modernity. Plotinus, by the way, lived in the Ancient as opposed to the modern world. He was a pagan philosopher. Christian theology borrowed some of his thoughts, but I would not say he was the dominant intellectual figure of the Medieval period. The most influential ancient writer — in terms of his reach — was Boethius who wrote “The Consolation of Philosophy.” His book was, in the early Middle Ages, second only to the Bible if my memory is not altogether gone. Attempts to characterize whole eras by single thinkers may be misplaced.
If you insist that a certain time period = modernity, then “modernity” is an undefined term as far as philosophy is concerned, because that time period includes vastly different ways of thinking and ideas.
If you connect modernity to certain ideas and ways of thinking, then you can’t limit yourself to a certain time period.
You can’t have it both ways.
I count modernity as referring to certain ways of thinking and the ideas they produce. In other words, my thought processes are those of the Reformation.
An example of the differences in thinking is found at https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2TU1ZFIBS2HCJ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0393005348
I guess at this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree. At least I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I hope you understand why we disagree.
A concept like “modernity” covers such a vast subject, what a person understands by it depends on the extent of their knowledge of it. If a person uses the word “elephant,” but has no exact idea of what an elephant is, he may understand it as a trunk attached to a large animal. If someone then spoke of the animal’s massive legs or ears, he might begin to argue. No, this is not an elephant, he would say. The trunk is the elephant. But here he would be confusing the part with the whole. So you see, the elephant is the whole elephant. Modernity is not the Reformation any more than the trunk is the whole elephant. We are describing a real thing when we use the term “modernity.” We may not know all there is to know about it, but all the same, that is what we are referring to. The category comes to us intuitively, as all categories come (which is troubling to empiricists). It actually makes sense to say that 1492 is a cut-off date, rounding this date off to 1500 AD. Insofar as we can characterize this “age,” in which man’s ideas about the world began to undergo a decisive shift, and our concept of the heavens also changed, we can see that the concept “modernity” is something very real and not arbitrary or nominal; that is, it has real meaning in it. We confuse ourselves, and lose our way, when we begin to enter the world of analytic science. The typically modern solution, in terms of the social sciences, is to reason in terms of “ideal types.” This combines something Platonic with something Aristotelian. Max Weber’s work in political sociology uses this methodology. The Austrian school of economics also does this. Many doctrinaire libertarians do not understand this, and therefore take certain Austrian school formulations as strictly empirical pronouncements — which they are not. We cannot logically discuss “modernity” without reducing it to an ideal type, or (tentatively) a universal. This simplifies something that we cannot know in full (but the discovery of meaning in it, being a deeper thing behind all things, nonetheless should be our pole star). Thus, in strict terms, our terminology itself falsifies the world of ephemera — the world of Heraclitus. Whatever shall we do? Yet the ephemeral world, mistaken for the real world, is itself a derivative, says Plato, says Schopenhauer, says Buddha, says the Church Fathers, and says Aristotle where he points to the necessity of the unmoved mover and the reality of the noetic soul. Oh dear! Where does that leave our reason, our science, our universals? Shall we now decry reason as futile and all reason as madness? Where does that leave our concepts, our universals? This is where everything gets trickey as the universe itself must — at bottom — prove to be an eternal mystery even as we find ourselves beset by erroneous ideas. As our ideal type signifies an aspect of reality only, accessible to the mind, our logical analysis grants us insight; but only if we understand the limitations of that insight which attends our non-omniscience. Here, again, we encounter deeper philosophical problems: that is, nominalism, which leads us to empiricism, brings us to the madness of absolute skepticism about everything. Thus, empiricism destroys itself. If one says, “Nothing is true” shall we then ask, “Is that really true?” Here is the rock on which modernity and all our “science” has run aground. Nominalism would have it that there are no “immaculate conceptions,” which is a double entendre that Nietzsche employed — the root calamity of modern skepticism, the disintegrative course of David Hume, the rejection of the primacy of the symbol and all transcendentals, which are (I believe) part and parcel of the great mystery — the true ground of existence itself. In saying this I am not exactly a Platonist, but a conflicted metaphysical dualist who, like Aristotle, holds that the world of objects is real but constitutes a created reality, born out of a Divine consciousness. Thus, the Divine Mind is primary, eternal, and above the world of created objects. It is that deep thing, that inner truth on which all being depends. So this is where I am coming from, with all its limitations and acceptance of old-fashioned metaphysics. I am attempting, however feebly or wobbly, to stand on the shoulders of thinkers who cut a path before me. My imperfect understanding of THEM is the best I can do for now. It is all I have. I am trying to develop insights into our current crisis in this manner, and cannot help referring to “modernity.” It is a useful concept, but it not merely useful. I think it genuinely refers to a phase in the degeneration of a larger civilization. It is not the trunk of the elephant, but the whole elephant that I want to understand.
This is awesome, Mr. Nyquist! I feel like I learned so much by reading even this single comment of yours; it was really interesting. Oh, I would have loved to have you as a professor when I was in college!
Dear Jeff: you have just described the emptiness of western philosophy that when taken to its logical conclusion results in nihilism. So you take the leap of faith that maybe, just maybe, that Aristotelian solid matter really exists and that you are a man living upon it. Yet, in the back of your mind that this may be just an illogical illusion based on a disturbance in the nothingness of Maya (as the Hindus call it) and when things quiet down, this whole illusion is gone. What a black hole of despair that this vision gives.
This is the logical end that starts with Plato and Aristotle.
Or we can take the path before us blazed by the Existentialists—looking at a meaningless world, we latch onto a cause to give our lives meaning. So I was taught by a French language professor who, as an existentialist French Jew during World War II, found his meaning in the French underground fighting against the Germans. That too is illogical and fighting against nihilism.
Most people get off the train before the last stop and fill their lives with pleasure, with causes such as scientism, other activities to keep their minds busy and not thinking about that last station on the line.
Another option is to ignore the sweet talk of Plato and Aristotle and just not get on the train of western philosophy. Such is the path of the Reformation—it kicked Plato and Aristotle to the curb, “Get out of my way!” and treated the Bible, not as allegory and myth, but as true history. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” not as a philosophical concept, but as a historical statement. Is that history true?
Well, let’s start with the last of the story and work backwards. The last event mentioned in Acts was a storm and shipwreck. Modern naval architects, working with what is known about Roman ships and how they react to storms, recreated how a Roman ship, hit by 14 days of a storm from the direction Luke mentioned, where would it end up after rounding Crete. Their recreation ended up at a bay with a reef in front of it, exactly as described by Luke.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? The actions by the Jewish leaders and disciples make no sense apart from the resurrection being a real, historical event.
What about fulfilled prophecy? One of the most famous being Daniel 9:24–27, relating to 490 years. That book from historical sources is known to have existed about 250 BC, yet the last verse and a half accurately describe the suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66–73 AD. The description is that the people of a future leader (the general who started the suppression because emperor) destroyed the city and temple, that it took seven years to impose a treaty (pax romana) on the land, 3.5 years into that imposition the people would cause the cessation of sacrifices (the temple was destroyed), accompanied by the wings of destructive idols (the Roman battle standards were eagles treated at idols). That’s accurate history.
These are just a few of the events that indicate that the Bible is historically accurate. The Bible treats its historical accuracy as evidence that its philosophical statements are also true. Those philosophical statements give us hope.
Do we take the path of hopeless western philosophy, or the path of the Bible that gives us hope? I have made my choice.
Getting back to the subject of this thread, do you understand why I insist that the Reformation is not part of western philosophy? Therefore is not part of western modernity?
You baffle me by offering historical proofs of spiritual truth. Does the spirit depend on history for its reality, or is it the other way around? You have upended your own ship — if you want to talk of shipwreck. The Reformation belongs to the history of Western philosophy. After all, theology is a branch of philosophy. The Reformation was a series of theologizing events — was it not? Then how could it not be a part of Western philosophy? Given its antecedents in Greek philosophy, how could you absolutely separate theology from ancient philosophy? Are not New Testament’s precepts found in Seneca? — found in Socrates? — found in Aristotle? I find in Greek philosophy many things that are in the Bible. How then could philosophy be “empty”? Is the mind a useless instrument? Is it best to let cobwebs form between our ears? — or did God give us intellect for a purpose? Our problems, in part, begin with this rising anti-intellectualism which has completely won over the “intellectual” class on the left and the right. There is no reward in the unexamined life. Socrates and the holy fool share some interesting traits.
Jeff: The Reformation is “western” only by history that it occurred in the west. But it deliberately and specifically broke with the western philosophical tradition going back to Plato and Aristotle, to go back to the Asian-Hebraic thinking of the Old Testament. In that regard, it is not western.
Yet that Asian-Hebraic way of thinking had a strong influence in Holland, England, Scandinavia and parts of Germany. That was strongest in science and technology, though also had effects in political and social issues.
Yes, one can find parallels between the ancient Greeks and the New Testament, because of shared humanity. But the underlying thought patterns differ radically.
To give one difference, Biblical thought is active and historical, while the Greeks thinking was ahistorical, contemplative and logic based. So in the Bible, God shows his presence through his actions into space-time history, starting with the creation of the universe. Contrast that to the “proofs of God” by Thomas Aquinas, who was part of western philosophic tradition, going by memory from reading them decades ago, only one of them made a reference to history, the rest were based on trying to give logical proofs. And in 1 Corinthians 15, the evidence for the resurrection was not a logical argument, but a reference to Jesus’ resurrection in space-time history.
What I have found when looking at western philosophy is that it leads to nihilism. I stopped reading western philosophy for that very reason. But then I look at western philosophy, not as a participant, but as an observer from the Asian-Hebraic viewpoint.
I too decry the rising anti-intellectualism. Part of that is due to the miseducation of our children—a dumbed down populace is easier to control, especially one also distracted with bread and circuses (junk food and video games). There’s also the anti-intellectualism of the “fundamentalists” which is de facto treason against the Reformation—it is shallow and based on external forms, just like much of western thinking.
It is interesting you should put it like that. Nietzsche made the exact same argument in reverse; namely, he said it was the historical claims of Judaism and Christianity that doomed these faiths to nihilism. You seem to suggest the opposite, as if the historical claims of a faith are the most important. The dialectical materialist goes to the ultimate extreme, making history be-all and end-all. They cannot believe in spiritual things at all after the Christian centuries of believing on the basis of an historical reference. They dropped God and were left with only history. What if we reversed that, and did not think of God’s intervention in history as a proof of God’s existence, but viewed instead the inner reality of God as a way of “proving” the relevance of the world?
I can see why Nietzsche made that argument—if the claims of dishonest “scientists” who called a religious belief (yes, religious) “science” are correct, then Judaism and Christianity, both of which make specific historical claims contradicted by these “scientific findings”, are fairy tales at best, if not destructive myths. The reason I added all the quotation marks is because the scientific method of that time, and still taught universally as late as 1980, was not designed to make those “scientific findings”.
A similar situation exists in history, especially ancient history from before about 500 BC. There’s a consensus history. Even though there’s evidence that the consensus is wrong, anyone who points out that evidence risks graduate degrees and any hope of becoming a university professor.
Nietzsche was right—if the “scientific findings” and consensus history are correct, then the Bible must be false. You might as well believe in unicorns galloping over rainbows.
But Nietzsche was wrong—he was a victim of dishonest “scientists” and poorly understood history.
In the Asian-Hebraic thinking, the past is the key to the present. In western philosophy, the present is the key to the past. That makes western philosophy ahistoric in that the “history” that western philosophy presents, is basically that which is made up to fit present understanding, Such is the case of the dialectal materialist—he starts with a certain understanding of the present, then imposes that on his understanding and teaching of the past.
I don’t understand your final question, “What if we reversed that, and did not think of God’s intervention in history as a proof of God’s existence, but viewed instead the inner reality of God as a way of “proving” the relevance of the world?” It sounds vaguely like Hinduism, but I’m not sure.
The idea is directly out of Genesis.
“White rage!” What a farce!
Yes.
🙂
Then there is this: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2021/07/17/caruzo-urban-warfare-in-caracas-socialist-death-squads-face-down-armed-gangs/
I like this Venezuelan journalist a lot; I read his work whenever it shows up on Breitbart.com.
The U.S. is about to head down the same very dangerous road that Venezuela had once started down, especially now that Trump is no longer in office. If those anarchists with their “defund the police” slogan get their way, then this may be what is in store for our urban centers as well as for suburbia in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Davies, you said;
”That may be due more to German work culture, the Marshall plan and the debt cancellation.
Let us not forget the two million Germans murdered in the American death camps from ’45 to ’47 after Morgenthau reclassified their status from POW’s to “Disarmed Enemy Forces” (DEFs). In contrast Allied POW’s were treated well and were given access to red cross, the Germans were denied access to red cross, starved, deprived of sanitation and were left to sleep rough in all weather conditions.
The bombing of civilians was started by Churchill as soon as he came to power, a fact conveniently ignored at the Nuremburg trials.”
3.3 million Soviet soldiers died in German captivity, out of 5.7 million Red Army POW’s, and they were Allied Soldiers, Mr. Davies.
Today is the feast day of the Holy martyrs of Tsar Nicholas and his family, in the Orthodox Christian calendar. So the troparion goes;
Holy Royal Martyrs of Russia, Troparion, Tone V —
”Meekly didst thou endure the loss of thine earthly kingdom, the bonds and divers sufferings inflicted upon thee by those opposed to God, and didst bear witness for Christ even unto death, O great passion-bearer, divinely crowned Tsar Nicholas; wherefore, Christ God hath crowned thee in the heavens with a martyr’s crown, together with thy queen, thy children and thy servants. Him do thou beseech, that He have mercy upon the Russian land and save our souls”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv_H5hEGQfU
Oh, my poor Russia!
Mr. Nyquist;
Funny thing, that ”Don Quixote” was something of a paragon esoterically speaking of Ignatius Loyola and his Company, and some say that Cervantes intended that deliberately; some scholars say that even if true it was intended as parody; ex;
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/5195
While some do get the esotericism to a slight degree;
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/08/don-quixote-saintly-knight-brittany-guzman.html
There are hidden meanings in Cervantes, but false meanings can be attributed to authors; for example, those who claim William Shakespeare was a Half-Jewish poetess of subversive tendencies. The evidence that Shakespeare was Marlowe is more persuasive to me — but who knows? Yet look at how differently “experts” read the yea leaves on who actually wrote the Shakespeare plays. Esoteric meanings drawn from wildly varying interpretations tend to be based on structural representations that could have many applications. What Cervantes was saying had depth enough to apply to Donald Trump or Joe Biden. So many figures on opposite sides of the contest bear a strange structural resemblance.
Yes, a ”strange structural resemblance” of foolishness indeed. And there have been many foolish bargains made with the Devil, all to make peace in their time and delay the catastrophic days which will certainly come. But then those I’m speaking of are more than fools, hearts black as night.
Regarding buffoons vs. real leaders, we have plenty of the former, but currently almost none of the latter. Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Trump, the problem now is that there is no follow-on galvanizing personality to take his place. For if Mr. Trump was a polarizing figure, he was indeed also a galvanizing one. That is how he won in 2016. The left just did not recognize the fervor he was generating at the time, and figured on Hillary Clinton’s erstwhile quasi-counterimage of relative calmness and smoothness to pull her through. Well, it didn’t, and the left, having their political wind knocked from their sails, reacted with a
blind reactionary spasm. Mr. Trump went on to actually govern as best he could, despite resistance from the deep state/establishment, including the upper military ranks of the military and national security/intelligence apparatus. Their outward defiance of his status and authority as commander in chief in his last year amounted to insubordination and pointed towards treason. But Mr. Trump was both unwilling and unable to deal with it, if only because the nature of the Presidential office and the traditional restrictions inherent in our system of government have prevented any President from deploying a sort of ‘Praetorian Guard’ to enforce his ultimate authority. Now Adolf Hitler engendered the SS to act as his unchallenged muscle in this regard, but Adolf Hitler had been able to get the German nation, almost unanimously, to confer absolute power unto himself. He therefore could build any sort of enforcement apparatus that he wanted. Donald Trump did not have anywhere near that type of capability, because the power to generate it had not been conferred on him. And with the Democrats and their lapdog media conglomerate throwing every political monkey wrench they could scarf up in his path (including a phony first impeachment attempt), he would not have dared try. Nevertheless, he was able, with at least the tacit cooperation of an at-first Republican Congress, to achieve some success in generating a good degree of economic prosperity and putting at least a limited lid on illegal immigration, as well as pursuing a carrot-and-stick approach towards better foreign policy outcomes, ones more genuinely oriented towards a true national interest. However, he was then knocked asunder by the surprise appearance of a worldwide epidemic, and his mixed response to that problem enabled the entire Democratic national apparatus and the media to ultra-weaponize it against him, blaming him for the resulting economic dislocation *their* own power-grab lockdowns caused. And despite the enthusiastic crowds he was still able to muster in the ensuing election campaign, he was unable to overcome the outright voting manipulations the Democrats were able to pull off in the battleground states to ultimately stymie him. His reaction of then trying to prove the election as fraudulent proved to be a useless quest almost from the start. After the electoral college certified the results in December, his entire focus should have then transferred to holding a Republican Senate. But he did not do that and Democrats went on to capture both Georgia Senate seats. Then came the grave tactical error of holding a rally near Washington the following day, giving tacit cover for some of his supporters to march undisciplined to Capitol Hill, only to end up laying a kabuki-theatre siege attempt there. This gave Democrats the excuse to scream about ‘insurrection’ and follow up with a second impeachment, even though by the time of the vote he was out of office. All that collectively left him as very much a spent force, unlikely to regenerate to its former level. And now, there is no one who seems able or willing to pick up his mantle and run hard with it. Someone who would be *ruthlessly* fearless, verbally hit the establishment hard with maximum possible punch (much better than Mr. Trump would or did) with such a bold in-your-face veracity that the Democrats and their media shills would be sent reeling back on their heels trying to respond to. Someone who could do what the Democrats did with the George Floyd matter—generate massive crowds in the streets—only without an actual third party as a catalyst. This would require a magnanimously charismatic person, someone at the level of a Franklin Roosevelt, only on steroids. The last Republican prior to Trump even vaguely able to rise toward that level was Ronald Reagan. But there is no even lukewarm-Reagan anywhere on the horizon currently. This lack of a new, incendiary rallying figure is a critical factor absent from any effort to prevent the country from being literally turned inside out.
An excellent analysis, Harold. Trump was like a captain of the sinking ship that should use a machine gun to bring an order to panicking passengers and rioting criminals and he failed to do so. Now the ship America is really sinking.
Still, he was working 16 hours a day to fix America after the calamity wrought by ODUMBA’s regime.
Where were then those 100 million allegedly adult and politically conscious Americans who should predict that the US was facing an election fraud on an unprecedented scale, should know better and do everything in their power to prevent it?
It was in 2013, if I remember well that I read an article (unfortunately, I haven’t got any details about it) in which the author has suggested that in 2008 some 7 million illegal or invalid votes were cast enabling ODUMBA and his cohort to steal the election. I’m pretty much sure that if the American Congress made an effort to investigate the 2008 election it would come out that Sarah Palin was the real winner and should be the US President for 2008 – 2016 tenure.
I’m calling Palin a real winner because John McCain lost that election deliberately and that discredits him as a leader and a winner. There is no doubt about that.
It is also pretty much sure that Palin was invited as McCain’s “partner” to blame her for the 2008 loss and destroy her politically.
Some two years ago, Jan Jekielek from an excellent American Thought Leaders vlog had an interview with the author of the documentary book in which that gentleman described the extent of the fraud the DEMONRATS are resorting to in order to steal elections both on the federal and a local level.
Sorry, but I don’t recall any more details from that particular interview.
I’m pointing on those circumstances to illustrate that there has been enough information about impending election fraud to warrant an action from those 100 million patriotic Americans without waiting for papa Trump to save them.
Regards – Bogdan
RE: “there has been enough information about impending election fraud to warrant an action from those 100 million patriotic Americans without waiting for papa Trump to save them.”
OK, what exactly where the 100 million patriotic Americans supposed to do? As per this TIme article (https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/) the opponents of Trump had a vast coalition involved in the 2020 election. They called it a “Secret Campaign”. They said it was to “protect” the election, but we all know it was to protect their desired outcome — a win for Biden. Their coalition wasn’t just individual people. It was composed of established left-leaning groups including labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce, the Democrat political party, and political advocacy groups.
How were the supporters of Trump supposed to counter this coalition of established, organized groups? Trump’s own “organized group” – the Republican party, gave him lukewarm support at best and couldn’t be counted on to organize a fight against the Secret Campaign. Other attempts to organize by the right like the Tea Party movement had been squelched by the government via the IRS.
If the groups who are supposed to be on “your side” (e.g. Republican Party, conservative political action groups) are really not and you can’t organize your own opposition groups, what solution is there to fight back against the organized left?
This is an excellent point.
CBDENVER wrote in response to Bogdan: If the groups who are supposed to be on “your side” (e.g. Republican Party, conservative political action groups) are really not and you can’t organize your own opposition groups, what solution is there to fight back against the organized left?
My comment: Has there ever been a group of people who defeated the Leftist/Communist tyrants who did so without violence? Commies gonna Commie until they are dead. America will not reason or debate or vote or otherwise defeat the tyranny that is presently clenching its fist about the throat of Liberty.
Commies in America are organized. They are true believers and fellow travelers and useful idiots, and they also count among their numbers hordes of opportunistic evil doers. They have academia, media, the legal system, most government offices and a big chunk of the corporate world – so what? Do we simply bend knee because they currently hold an advantage? Do we whine and wail because *they* will call us names and ruin our credit and mock and ostracize us because we believe in Liberty & Freedom? Do we turn our backs on the bloody footprints in the snow of Valley Forge and the heroes of our past who showed us how to deal with evil and what the costs may be?
Or, do we take personal responsibility for our lives, do we stand tall in the face of evil and do the hard work of reclaiming our Liberty and killing evil?
Robert Malins is not wrong in his conviction that only violence will ultimately determine whether Liberty lives or dies in America. He is not wrong that those who mean to be our masters will use merciless force to end us, once they believe it is time. He is not wrong in his assertion that in the face of merciless force brought to bear by our enemies that we will either fight back or perish – and perhaps perish even if we do take arms. He *is* wrong to pressure Jeff into a role for which he is not suited, and public discussions that will, unquestionably, raise Jeff’s threat level in the eyes of bad people.
What solution, asks CBDENVER. Every patriotic American reading this blog, and the hundreds/thousands of similar blogs online, lives within spitting distance of at least 1 True Believer, Fellow Traveler, Useful Idiot and/or opportunistic evil doer. Sweep your front porch, and sweep your neighborhood until you meet other patriots who are sweeping. *The enemy* is never, ever *the government* or any group of like-minded people. The enemy is always, always *an individual*.
True Americans are not mewling cowards who wait for “the right president/general/blogger” to make a call for action. It is *your* liberty and freedom being taken by individuals who mean to be our masters. Take action, or do not take action – but the quantity and quality of freedom and liberty in your life is entirely on you.
The Commies mean to end us. So, wake up early and end them first…
Contemplate one word to find the answer: Extirpate.
CBDENVER wrote in response to Bogdan: If the groups who are supposed to be on “your side” (e.g. Republican Party, conservative political action groups) are really not and you can’t organize your own opposition groups, what solution is there to fight back against the organized left?
My comment: Has there ever been a group of people who defeated the Leftist/Communist tyrants who did so without violence? Commies gonna Commie until they are dead. America will not reason or debate or vote or otherwise defeat the tyranny that is presently clenching its fist about the throat of Liberty.
Commies in America are organized. They are true believers and fellow travelers and useful idiots, and they also count among their numbers hordes of opportunistic evil doers. They have academia, media, the legal system, most government offices and a big chunk of the corporate world – so what? Do we simply bend knee because they currently hold an advantage? Do we whine and wail because *they* will call us names and ruin our credit and mock and ostracize us because we believe in Liberty & Freedom? Do we turn our backs on the bloody footprints in the snow of Valley Forge and the heroes of our past who showed us how to deal with evil and what the costs may be?
Or, do we take personal responsibility for our lives, do we stand tall in the face of evil and do the hard work of reclaiming our Liberty and killing evil?
Robert Malins is not wrong in his conviction that only violence will ultimately determine whether Liberty lives or dies in America. He is not wrong that those who mean to be our masters will use merciless force to end us, once they believe it is time. He is not wrong in his assertion that in the face of merciless force brought to bear by our enemies that we will either fight back or perish – and perhaps perish even if we do take arms. He *is* wrong to pressure Jeff into a role for which he is not suited, and public discussions that will, unquestionably, raise Jeff’s threat level in the eyes of bad people.
What solution, asks CBDENVER. Every patriotic American reading this blog, and the hundreds/thousands of similar blogs online, lives within spitting distance of at least 1 True Believer, Fellow Traveler, Useful Idiot and/or opportunistic evil doer. Sweep your front porch, and sweep your neighborhood until you meet other patriots who are sweeping. *The enemy* is never, ever *the government* or any group of like-minded people. The enemy is always, always *an individual*.
True Americans are not mewling cowards who wait for “the right president/general/blogger” to make a call for action. It is *your* liberty and freedom being taken by individuals who mean to be our masters. Take action, or do not take action – but the quantity and quality of freedom and liberty in your life is entirely on you.
The Commies mean to end us. So, wake up early and end them first…
Contemplate one word to find the answer: Extirpate.
We expect a TV star, I think, to rescue us.
That would indeed be a fantasy.
That ”Kayfabe”,scripted professional wrestling suspension of reality comes to mind that I talked about before. A true leader in modern times I think would be more inclined to kick a TV in than be a product or consumer of TV.
“This would require a magnanimously charismatic person, someone at the level of a Franklin Roosevelt, only on steroids.”
This is the very sort of person to be feared if he suddenly appears. It may well be that he will; but he will be backed by the devil. He will appear as a deliverer; but what will he deliver and to whom will he deliver?
Many are looking for a leader to stop the madness. We may well see such a leader…to our dismay.
We are almost certain to get only bad leaders, since our orientation is wrong.
Dear Mr Nyquist,
I’m trying to understand the current situation and follow the events from Switzerland.
What is wrong with Mike Lindell? You seem to think his infos are wrong or misleading?
Could you please expand on that?
Thank you!
I do think the information is misleading. The same people who sold Mike Lindell on the idea the election was hacked from abroad approached me last January around the same time they approached Lindell. So I know exactly where the information is coming from, and as a result I believe Lindell and President Trump are being set up for a fall. I have been working with people who have more detailed investigative information to warn Lindell and Trump. I cannot go into details at this time.
Problems with the U.S. National Guard? https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/17/national-guard-two-weeks-collapse-stalling-promotions-gutting-training-canceling-drills-leaders-warn.html
Don’t know if this is just political posturing to pressure congress for funding or if the crisis in our National Guard is this severe. Just posting here for input from others who might have more knowledge of this than I do.
Since the story refers to partisan bickering about paying the bill from last January’s overreaction, the story is believable. Sadly.
Jeff, apologies for posting here, but this indirectly relates to political insanity via public health.
two c-19 videos:
vaccine door knocker gets k/o. no way to verify this is real or was videotaped as a simulation “warning” for those pursue this in America:
https://rumble.com/vk09us-hi-we-would-like-to-have-a-word-with-you.-have-you-considered-the-covid-19-.html
in argentina, it results in this (sorry no context):
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/medical-martial-law-forced-vaxx-argentina-early-stage-hospitals-coming-to-your-country-see-notes_C4l9qsbKRqi4XOB.html
Things are getting crazy.
I think I heard of a similar situation happening in Australia a few months ago.
A ”Don Quixote” can also be the ”Fool” in his/her archetypal journey, seeing what they wish to see, wherein in the journey they gradually learn the wisdom of the fathers and mothers past. With this in mind, here is a children’s film from the Soviet period with English subtitles;
”Morozko”, or ”Grandfather Frost”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw2DN4335hU
No Marxist Leninism in it whatsoever.
Mr. Nyquist,you said with regards to Modernism and my comment on it;
”“Modernism” may not be purely Western. It refers, I think, to the advent of materialism, to its despair, to its second reality. Modernism — in its negative sense — conveys the inverted value system of materialism. That system of thought and action has a long history in China. In a sense, modernism is Chinafication — figuratively and now, in the end, literally.”
It is most true that the modern and pretty secular state (”religious” in that it worshiped itself and encouraged the people todo likewise) was ”invented” in China (perhaps they just got to that Omega Point first), and I note with curiousity that the Western ”enlightenment” historically was and still is highly Sinophile in almost all aspects.
Nietzsche warned about this, too.
I remember something (I think in Nietzsche’s ”Antichrist”) about Kant being the ”Chinese of Konigsberg” or something like that. I know that Nietzsche had only scorn for Kant and the other German ”Idealists”, and rightfully so.
East vs West, ie psychopaths vs schizophrenics? Boy are we well served…
R.O. you stated about the alleged vagaries of the language used to critique our era that;
”In this discussion, should there not be a more concise use of language? In particular, the use of the term “modernism”? It’s used to cover such a wide range of beliefs and attitudes that it is basically undefined.”
‘Modernism’ would be the concept of what the dominant philosophy or philosophies of the era we live in. That we even have a concept of time that separates us in such a provisional way from previous generations itself should be a sign of something quite novel going on.
”In my training as a scientist, modern science had its birth in the Reformation.”
No founding thinker or preacher of the ‘Reformation’ had anything good to say about the rising tide of humanistic science and philosophy, none. And almost all of the beginning scientists were at least formal nominal members of the Papal Church; Giordano Bruno was a Monk, Nicholas Copernicus was a Cathedral Canon, and so on.
” It was a spiritual movement based on how one reads the Bible.”
Which ‘science’ rejected as a guide.
”While it drew on ideas also present in medieval and Renaissance philosophy, it was the Reformation that gave the pieces of the puzzle to give the whole picture. As such, modernism was a very spiritual movement. It did not contradict the Bible, because it was based on the Bible.”
No, not really.
”However, you, and Vladimir especially, are calling the revolt against modernism with the same term “modernism”. This is the opposite movement. Its purpose is to remove the divine from nature, including human nature. Charles Darwin was part of that revolt against modernism. I’ve heard many call this revolt against modernism “post-modernism”.”
Protestantism coincided with the Modern era and Modernism, but it’s quarrels internally and with other Christian groups are on the same plane as in previous eras and controversies prior to the modern era. While formal denominations can always be created or subverted to follow doctrines of the Modern era, the doctrines of the Modern era-Modernism-were created precisely to ”liberate” people from the thinking and faith of previous eras.
”For some, post-modernism = materialism. For others—mysticism. Still others—pantheism. Post-modernism is giving the negative effects that you decry.
Part of communism is a degradation of the language, so that one is not sure what is meant. So we can expect our foes to use language in a sloppy manner. But shouldn’t we be careful in our use of language?”
I am unfortunately at a loss to discover any literature that coincides with the terminology you are using or rather, the way that you are using it. On the contrary, I find quotes out there from like this one fromthe scientist Herbert Butterfield, talking about this era and Protestantism,and the specifically about the Copernican Revolution in relation to them;
”It outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and the Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of Medieval Christendom”… ‘It is not simply a new theory of the nature of the Celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances, it is identical with truth.” Butterfield goes on to say;
”Since it [the Copernican Revolution] changed the character of men’s habitual operations even in the conduct of the non-material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin of the MODERN world and of the Modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European History has become an anachronism and an encumbrance.”
Or as Arthur Koestler once said on the matter of the philosophy of science;
”The new philosophy destroyed the mediaeval vision of an immutable social order in a walled-in universe together with its fixed hierarchy of moral values, and transformed the European landscape,society,culture, habits and general outlook as thoroughly as if a new species had arisen on this planet”.
I think the term is understood generally. In ancient times Livy wrote of “the dark dawning of our modern day,” He was referring to the materialism of his time. Our iteration is much more destructive to the soul.
I believe so Mr. Nyquist, because it’s become a systemic way of life, today’s materialism, complex and interlocking methodologies and processes which enmesh people like a fly in amber.
Vladimir: you wrote, “‘Modernism’ would be the concept of what the dominant philosophy or philosophies of the era we live in.” In other words, it’s an undefined term. In 800 AD it meant neo-Platonism. In 1400 AD western Europe it meant neo-Aristotelianism. And today …????? There are different dominant philosophies depending on where one lives.
”No founding thinker or preacher of the ‘Reformation’ had anything good to say about the rising tide of humanistic science and philosophy, none.” That’s because “humanistic science” was found in the Renaissance. The Reformers rejected the humanism of the Renaissance and leapt back over to an earlier way of thinking, namely that found in the Bible. They had no problem with a scientific study of nature. In fact, Copernicus would never have had his book published without the collaboration of Lutheran theologians from Wittenberg, colleagues of Martin Luther.
“Which ‘science’ rejected as a guide.” Not the science I was taught at the university. But many “scientists” are schizophrenic—they taught modern science, but didn’t follow it. They remind me of Romans 1:22. Much of what they call “science” is not the science I was taught in the university. After the 1980s when creationists called them out for their self-contradictions, those “scientists” invented new definitions for “science”.
“Protestantism coincided with the Modern era and Modernism,…” Here you contradict yourself. These are two opposites that you call by the same term.
As an undergrad at the university, I took a survey of religions class. There was one religion that they didn’t teach. That was Biblical Christianity as was taught by the Reformers. They didn’t teach it, because they didn’t understand it. Your quotes from Herbert Butterfield and Arthur Koestler show that they didn’t understand it either.
One of the features of modernity is “the chaos of the gods.” There is no single, universal faith. There is a chaos of ideas.
R.O. you replied to me that;
”Vladimir: you wrote, “‘Modernism’ would be the concept of what the dominant philosophy or philosophies of the era we live in.” In other words, it’s an undefined term. In 800 AD it meant neo-Platonism. In 1400 AD western Europe it meant neo-Aristotelianism. And today …????? There are different dominant philosophies depending on where one lives.”
Firstly,the Modern era is commonly dated around 1500 AD. In Russia it used to be dated as beginning in 1492 AD, the 7000th year of the world in the traditional calendar (and an interesting date in itself, with the discovery of the New World and all). I would say that the ”dominant philosophy” or philosophies since then are Heliocentrism and Evolution.
””No founding thinker or preacher of the ‘Reformation’ had anything good to say about the rising tide of humanistic science and philosophy, none.” That’s because “humanistic science” was found in the Renaissance. The Reformers rejected the humanism of the Renaissance and leapt back over to an earlier way of thinking, namely that found in the Bible. They had no problem with a scientific study of nature. In fact, Copernicus would never have had his book published without the collaboration of Lutheran theologians from Wittenberg, colleagues of Martin Luther.”
Those are contradictory statements I’m afraid.You can’t reject the Humanist Milieu and support it at the same time, one of the narratives is not correct exactly.
”“Which ‘science’ rejected as a guide.” Not the science I was taught at the university. But many “scientists” are schizophrenic—they taught modern science, but didn’t follow it. They remind me of Romans 1:22. Much of what they call “science” is not the science I was taught in the university. After the 1980s when creationists called them out for their self-contradictions, those “scientists” invented new definitions for “science”.”
Most Scientists are so specialized in their fields that they accept what people in other areas of scientific work are saying concerning the consensus, it’s ”groupthink.”
”“Protestantism coincided with the Modern era and Modernism,…” Here you contradict yourself. These are two opposites that you call by the same term.”
You have not proven your thesis that these things are truly opposites, a statement is not in itself an axiom, a tautology.
”As an undergrad at the university, I took a survey of religions class. There was one religion that they didn’t teach. That was Biblical Christianity as was taught by the Reformers.”
You are on a journey which goes beyond what we generally can discuss here, and it should be needless to say that Roman Catholics consider their belief ”Biblical Christianity”, and it is the same with Orthodox Christians too.
”They didn’t teach it, because they didn’t understand it. Your quotes from Herbert Butterfield and Arthur Koestler show that they didn’t understand it either.”
They ”show” no such thing. You are making a statement which assumes a whole lot of ideological and theological baggage along with it.
Now mind you among other things I personally believe in a literal six-day creation by God from nothing, about a little over seven thousand five hundred years ago. I also absolutely reject the theory of evolution and pretty much the entire universally accepted cosmology of the modern era. I find that belief supported by the Fathers of the Church and Ecumenical Councils in their unanimous consent and canons and decrees, and by the clear sense of Holy Scripture, and by true science itself. But go right ahead and identify Protestantism with the Modernist theory of Evolution and the Copernican Revolution and all the other secular and humanistic revolutions since circa 1500 AD. Luther and Calvin and Zwingli would not support you very much, however.
Vladimir: I’m finished with you. You obviously have no idea how the Reformation differs from what Jeff Nyquist calls “modernism”. I agree with Jeff’s description, only I have heard it called “post-modern” by others. I won’t quibble with Jeff about the name, as the content is what is important. Yes, I wrote assuming knowledge of ideological baggage of which, if you don’t know, an educated person would ask for clarification. Instead, you spout off nonsense, even twisting my words into the opposite of what I wrote. I’ve had it. I won’t respond to you again.
@JRNyquist: “The course of degeneration” — that is the consumerism which has taken hold of American society, that you had mentioned in a previous thread, right?
Consumerism is one of the symptoms. I tend to agree with Richard Weaver that there is a deeper philosophical problem — with the way we think about ourselves and the universe, God, etc. We have abandoned transcendentals — goodness, truth and beauty. We want other “stuff.”
Yes, that is true. We Americans, both young and old, tend to live in self-contained bubbles, and we can forget that there is a whole world beyond our own borders. I’ve heard rumors that foreigners, like Europeans, for instance, look down on us for largely speaking only one language, rather than, say, two or three of them.
Since I was a teenager, I have had a great interest in current events and in foreign policy. For many years since then, I have regularly read conservative and right-leaning online publications, and my own family (they are conservative, too) know this. They say often to me, “The news doesn’t affect you directly; why do you spend so much time reading about it? Why don’t you do something more worthwhile, like look for work, or take a walk outside?” Oh my god; it is frustrating to deal with attitudes like that, that see little value in knowledge for its own sake, which is an ideal that I, on the other hand, treasure.
👍
🙂
@JRNyquist: When I was an undergraduate, I took a Political Science course, “International Relations,” that I loved. Even all of these years later, I remember that class and what I learned there fondly.
My professor had wanted me to pursue a Political Science major, but I chose English instead, because I loved literature and because I wanted to teach it at the college level (which did not end up happening).
I just reread my post from a day or two ago. It seems rambling and I apologize. I was only thinking about some of the lies , or false realities I see in my neck of the woods, but I failed to be clear.
Many of us never bought into the hype around the Coronavirus. Quite a few of us never wore masks or complied with the unprecedented BS that came with the virus. I am grateful that I didnt get on board with the hype. However, I have watched with dismay as many elder, wise, godly people that I respect have gotten the so-called vaccine, and I shudder to think of what harm that may do them in the future.
The Q stuff is something else I saw some people buying into, but I never could trust it. Why such cryptic writings, subject to various interpretations, always leading only to more cryptic writings subject to more various interpretations?
Probably the biggest delusion in my area though, is how so many thought Trump was going to save us. It alarmed me to see people put so much faith in a mere man, especially such a flawed one as Trump. It really disappointed me after he won, that he went to a lot of the states where he won and mainly boasted of his victory. I felt he needed to stop his big talk, and get down to the business of trying to turn the country around.
I feel that Trump made a lot of Patriots feel confident and bold, and they came out in different ways to support him. And I cant help but think they only served to expose themselves to people who are taking names.
I always felt that Trump didnt truly understand the nature of the beast that America is facing.
I also meant to say, that the thing that keeps me grounded in reality, is God’s Word, and a measure of common sense. Reading several chapters a day, asking Him to help me to obey what He says, and praying keep me from getting sucked into the false realities.
Greynight one who has common sense is wise no matter your age or condition. Hold on to it and recall that the good will never ask you to do evil (or allow evil) so that some ‘good’ might come of it.
Yes. Me too.
Trump’s role (from the Dee[p State’s perspective) was probably to give the rabid Left a rallying point, someone they could project their hatred of the Right onto as part of a general preparation for full-on activation, but also to mentally disarm the Right by giving them a false sense of security, that “our man is in charge”. On the plus side, his tenure may have bought us some time before the Big Push into Marxist bedlam / destruction of the Anglo West really gets going.
The only reason I even mentioned Trump, is he has got back into gear talking a good game again. I have no way to know his motivation, but everytime I read or hear something he says, i inwardly cringe for some reason. How many who were at the Jan 6 excitement are rotting in Washington DC jail right now, stripped of all their rights, in large part because he worked people up to be there. Anyone remember his invite, saying to be in DC the 6th of January, saying it was going to be “wild”? And now many innocent, America-loving people have been taken from their homes, occupations, and loved ones and are awaiting “trial”, facing draconian punishment for being there and walking around the capitol. I really wish Trump would just ride off into the sunset.
Trump has always advanced himself by intuition. Also, he is popular because he was a reality TV star. People believe in him, but maybe their faith is misplaced. In truth, I find him deceptive. For example, he lied about Ben Carson during the 2016 campaign, when Carson began to pull ahead in the polls. In terms of decorum: One of the presidential debates degenerated into a discussion of who had the larger penis — in coded language, on Trump’s initiative. Not creditable. Trump picked people who do not understand the problems we face. He therefore undermined himself. Is Trump preferable to Hillary Clinton of Joe Biden? Yes. Is he capable of defeating the Marxists? I do not think so. Just look around and add up his failures. If you say they stole the election from him, it only means he failed here as well. How could anyone defeat the left who has no detailed knowledge of how they operate? The January 6 event underscores his incapacity. A rally on enemy territory? Really? This was the perfect venue for a provocation. Why did he call for large crowds? Was he trying to intimidate Congress? I do not know. He exercised poor judgment in any case. Washington DC is enemy territory, where mischief could be used against him. This was courting trouble. And now, behind the scenes, he is going with Lindell’s narrative about election fraud. Once again, he is courting another disaster. Yet he always steals the show. People love him. And he hurt China and Russia. Truthfully, he is the only game in town — but flawed.
I have a working hypothesis that Q, though probably a psyop used by multiple entities at different times, has at least done some good by keeping people who might not normally remain calm, occupied figuring out riddles and innuendo instead of say joining an FBI entrapment scheme. If Fear is the enemy of reason, then at least they have had time to notice some of the games being played even if they are still convinced they are in some kind of populist Illuminati.
What’s the alternative for them realistically? We’re all damned with Fate, at least they have some temporary comfort until all “this” shakes lose in some kind of end-of-days crescendo.
But they did fall into an FBI entrapment scheme — on 6 January.
@JRNyquist: RE the Capitol Hill incident on 01/06–I watched Fox News for much of that day, and as I watched the footage, I couldn’t shake the feeling that so much of what was going on seemed choreographed, like the “fighting” between rioters and Capitol Police.
There was a part of the video where people were trying to break a window, and when it “broke,” I said to myself, “Glass windows don’t shatter like that. What is going on here?” Also, after the window “shattered,” it looked like the opening was covered with a plastic sheet or something. It just looked really weird. Another thing about the whole incident that seemed bizarre to me was, why were there so many young, white men in the crowd of rioters?
It was a relatively small number of people who broke in. Of course, they would be white for obvious reasons.
Yes, I can understand that if I consider it — it would be for those Leftist bigots to able to promote their “white supremacy” line that they keep banging on about.
*I meant to write “to be able to promote” — sorry for the syntactical confusion.
To clarify on Jan 6, estimates of around 1 million people showed up to the capitol to protest a corrupt election. A couple of hundred “storm” the capital, mostly peacefully staying in the velvet ropes, make for a tenuous assertion that the group was “duped” into insurrection (or that all 1 million were part of Q). It’s much like the assertion that Charlottesville was “swarmed” with White Nationalist when a Nationwide movement managed to draw a few thousand from a region with 110 million. The math doesn’t support it.
I’m not advocating the Q movement, just noticing that by convincing people to inaction they also inhibit bad action (no matter the motives of Q him or herself). Why storm the Bastille when you’ve been convinced that everything is under control and your action is not needed?
If activism produces such results, people will have to rethink their activism. No tilting against windmills is usually good advice.
🤣
I really enjoyed (???) reading your last 2 (and who knows maybe they will be) essays. If I was to condense them, which of course is almost insulting but I hope you will bear with me, I propose the following:
Atheism is the opiate of the Revolution
Why? Not only does it deny the reality of God, but also Satan and Lucifer.
I believe, as a practicing Roman Catholic, in the complete reality of the spiritual order. As St. Paul stated:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
These powers are currently ascendant, not only expressed by the Communists, but in all sectors of our society as well and in the Church (and at the top).
If we accept this as truth, we don’t have to demonize the bankers, the Jews, the Jesuits, the democrats, Trump or anyone else, they are all simply deluded by the demons and without conspiring carrying out the plans of Hell for domination of the entire human race. After all the demons are angels with angelic intelligence far beyond ours and can organize (or disorganize) far better than we.
So we have to pray, and I strongly suggest asking for the intersession of St. Michael for ourselves and our country.
Just FYI, I was a poly sci major at UCI fall 1982 – spring 1983 and immediately understood from the 101 class that the department was run by the communists. I had already had Logic and intro to Greek Philosophy at a Jesuit university. Danziger (?) I believe was the lecturer. He was just grooming those kids, made me sick. But I did enjoy the classes Carole Ulhaner and Rein Taagepera taught at that time, I’m sure they have moved quite a bit to the left since then
I got my BA there in 1981. I did some work with Taagapera when I returned as a graduate student in 1987. He was a believer in “Swedish style” social democracy. He disliked American conservatives.
Like you, no one liked me either and so I became an engineering technician
Amen to that, Vladimir
Amen, so be it indeed!
A Double Life, is a film about an actor who can’t separate his own personality, from the roles he plays.
Ronald Coleman plays the protagonist. As the actor plays Othello, his first performance is great, but amazingly each time, the performance gets progressively better. A wonderful film. Just a movie?
Marilyn Monroe’s, prettier roommate, debuts.
https://youtu.be/24C6vASJWaU
I will look for it.
Mr. Nyquist, you said;
”One of the features of modernity is “the chaos of the gods.” There is no single, universal faith. There is a chaos of ideas.”
The framework of Modernism certainly invites chaos, as would anything that does not fit properly with natural reality,propped up by force and fraud. It rests on a terribly thin chain of assumptions and appeals to authority which disguise the intellectual bankruptcy.
And it’s subject to change very quickly, the universally accepted ”science”…
It is probably obvious that I have numerous concerns about militant Islam, and perhaps I see things a little differently from your perspective, but I cannot help to give an example and notice the fact that there has been a tremendous push in recent years for acceptance of ”Flat Earth” cosmology (one that requires a considerable amount of money to back I’m thinking), and perhaps not coincidentally traditional Islam teaches that ”Flat Earth” cosmology is the cosmology described in the Koran. One would not be wildly speculating if one predicted a triumph of ”Flat Earth Cosmology” in a world much more dominated by militant Islam.
No doubt Islam is a very serious threat to Russia — as Old Russia was a significant bulwark against a Islam. It will be a serious threat in terms of its rising population numbers.
This is almost nearly the entire ”Axis Mundi” of my geopolitical thought in a nutshell, the breach made in modern times against that very Bulwark. And that’s without resort to any spiritual or meta-historical arguments (although those exist, in my worldview).
I agree 100%, Mr. Nyquist. I well remember his coded commen on his penis size. I also found it very low when he started slandering Cruz as well as Carson. It’s always all about Trump. He wants all the glory.
It always bothered me that people would risk, and even take beatings to go to his rallies, yet he never seemed humbled by that.
But even sadder to me, is the more he boasted, and at times slandered, the more people seemed to love him.
Sad days in our country. I think that God may have been giving the nation space to repent by allowing Trump to go into office. I remember so many people saying that God had given us another chance, and we weren’t going to take our freedom for granted, but were going to turn back to God…and then, once the economy started taking off, all that sentiment was promptly forgotten. I’m afraid that pride was the rule, both in Trump’s life, and the lives of those who looked to him as a temporal savior.
Sorry to keep rambling on about the man, I am done. I am beginning to sound like the broken record Robert Malins, lol
Trump is the measure of the times. If he was the best choice to oppose Marxism, imagine how much larger our problem is….
Good point. Yessir, the nation is in deep trouble.
Mr. Nyquist;
You said about President Trump that..
”Trump has always advanced himself by intuition. Also, he is popular because he was a reality TV star. People believe in him, but maybe their faith is misplaced. In truth, I find him deceptive. For example, he lied about Ben Carson during the 2016 campaign, when Carson began to pull ahead in the polls. In terms of decorum: One of the presidential debates degenerated into a discussion of who had the larger penis — in coded language, on Trump’s initiative. Not creditable. Trump picked people who do not understand the problems we face. He therefore undermined himself. Is Trump preferable to Hillary Clinton of Joe Biden? Yes. Is he capable of defeating the Marxists? I do not think so. Just look around and add up his failures. If you say they stole the election from him, it only means he failed here as well. How could anyone defeat the left who has no detailed knowledge of how they operate? The January 6 event underscores his incapacity. A rally on enemy territory? Really? This was the perfect venue for a provocation. Why did he call for large crowds? Was he trying to intimidate Congress? I do not know. He exercised poor judgment in any case. Washington DC is enemy territory, where mischief could be used against him. This was courting trouble. And now, behind the scenes, he is going with Lindell’s narrative about election fraud. Once again, he is courting another disaster. Yet he always steals the show. People love him. And he hurt China and Russia. Truthfully, he is the only game in town — but flawed. ”
He was very scary to many Russian people, even though they respected his aura of strength initially. Some subsequently after his election had tried to compare him to Vladimir Zhirinovsky, thinking Trump a Buffoon, but neither of these gentlemen are Buffoons. I have tried to study President Trump and I have concluded a couple of things, one being that he is very misunderstood among both his followers and his enemies. He as you hint, has a cunning intuition although I think he has more than that. His crudities and all that are not random, but part of the role he is playing. As the situation evolves, so too will the role, as I think that he has a proprietary interest in America and it’s place in the world, conflated with the future course of Capitalism.
I do not think that his run in 2024 will be like that in 2016. And when he wins in 2024, his administration will be different than that of his first term. I do believe that he has a larger strategy and worldview, and in some sense has been preparing for politics for at least a couple decades now.
I agree that Trump long ago prepared for a political role. He is cunning in the extreme. His deceptiveness was very much in evidence vs. Russia and China. He would speak well of Putin and Xi, but his actions were calculated to screw them over. Few analysts noticed this with regard to Russia. He was a very different kind of American president, to be sure. His assassination of Soleimani was unprecedented for its open-faced brutality. No US President has ever admitted or bragged about murdering a major leader in a foreign country (who was killed en route to a negotiation). This was something new. Yes, Trump is very unusual. In facing a cunning and ruthless American leader who was damaging China, Beijing reached for the virus. Perhaps it was an overreaction. They have now thrown the world into a desperate economic situation. Trump was then defeated because he underestimated China’s ruthlessness and the virus’s psychological power over a neurotic country; but China has not won yet. To do this they are confronted with organizing a violent follow-through. But do they have the nerve? Wall Street is turning against them. Even Biden cannot stop the economic backlash against China. Beijing will be our whipping boy once the USA economy degrades. Many sources indicate war is contemplated. The complicated question is whether Trump’s policies screwed up the Chinese long range plan? Or did he merely accelerate the plan?
I hope that it is the former.
@JRNyquist: What do you mean by “Beijing will be our whipping boy?”
They are looking for someone to blame for what is about to unfold. They are not entirely wrong to blame China, but they are forgetting their own stupidity — of moving our industrial base there. The tangle is a bad one. If they break with China then war could follow quickly. If they stop themselves, war will still happen, only sometime later. China is preparing and seems to have decided on war. Russia appears to support this decision. The East Bloc has the military advantage. Why not use it? If the bloc leaders were not intending to use it, why did they sacrifice so much to acquire it?
Great rhetorical questions, Mr. Nyquist. I appreciate your quick responses.
He is cunning and ruthless, which is why the elites are terrified of the man and went to great lengths in 2020 to defeat President Trump, at all costs. You’ll see, they didn’t have the years to spare from 2016-2020, contending with him and his supporters, and 2021-2024 will be their undoing.
Trump is now miscalculating. But how badly?
Wow! One of the best yet. No, I’m not mad at you now. It seems we only get to pick the better of two evil clowns for our leader today. At least yellow man did a few good things, but he didn’t understand how much the deep state would reject his shifting the chess pieces around on the board so out of place. I’m sure he had to deal with some of the evil clowns building his business, but he totally missed what they would do to him for going against the the flow. After all, you are supposed to take the money and keep quiet and do what they tell you. Business men don’t make good politicians because if they are good their BS detector works. And yes, one must be ever diligent about believing anything from a politician, government worker or news reporter today, as well as yesterday. As PT Barnum said, “there’s one born every minute.” God help us.
Narcissists are good at swindling, but they are also subject to swindles. A very curious fact which our Don Quixotes have demonstrated.
I hardly ever watch TV, so when Trump appeared on stage as a candidate, my first reaction was “Who’s this guy? What does he stand for?”
As I learned more, I found that I just couldn’t trust the guy. When the primary came around, I voted against him.
I now wonder, if instead of cleaning out the swamp, he is part of the swamp? That he is part of the “controlled opposition” to incite his base? And to keep them distracted so that they don’t mount an effective counter to what’s going on? There are things that he does that don’t make sense. And there are some things I learned about him just recently that lead me to ask these questions.
I have to admit that his “Operation Warp Speed” really turned me off.
I don’t trust the guy.
I’m inclined to agree with you about Trump, R.O.
I dont/cant trust him either.
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2020/08/19/chinese-boats-galapagos-off-tracking-systems/
This article is from about a year ago, but this intimidation tactic used by these fleets remains an ongoing problem for the South American countries that face the Pacific, especially Ecuador. These fishing boats from China, beg pardon the expression, have some real brass balls to be repeatedly encroaching on sovereign South American waters.
Jeff, not sure if you can comment, KC from the Hong Kong Independence Party sent me this on Telegram today, it is about the Chinese Communist Party behind the incitement of independence:
Hong Kong media: The CCP is the initiator of “inciting independence” and splitting China
[NTD News April 04, 2017]
A Hong Kong media article stated that the CCP has high-profile opposition to ” Taiwan Independence ” and ” Hong Kong Independence ” in recent years . In fact, the CCP is the initiator of instigating “independence” in China, many times before seizing power throughout the country. Encourage the independence of various places and establish a “state within a country” to split the nation. The historian Xin Haonian even revealed that today’s ” Taiwan independence ” was cultivated solely by the CCP back then.
In the April issue of Hong Kong’s “Contending” magazine, a signed commentary article “The CCP is the initiator of inciting “independence” in China” was published in the April issue of this year.
The article said that at the CCP’s “Two Sessions” on March 5, the CCP’s government work report named ” Hong Kong Independence ” for the first time , and once again declared that it “opposes all forms of Taiwan independence.” The generation that grew up after the CCP seized the authority and took power will certainly think that the CCP has always resolutely opposed any political forces that demand independence in China.
However, history is not like this. The CCP instigated various independence movements in China before it seized power.
The article reveals that in 1920, Mao Zedong published an article entitled “Fundamental Issues in Hunan Construction-Hunan Republic” in the then “Ta Kung Pao”, publicly promoting the independence of Hunan Province and the political proposition of establishing a “Hunan Republic.”
Then from June to October 1920, Mao Zedong wrote a series of articles advocating “Hunan independence” and submitted it to Ta Kung Pao. These include: “The Self-Determination of the People of Hunan” (June 18), “The Fundamental Problem of Hunan Construction: The Republic of Hunan” (September 3), “Break the foundationless China and build a lot of China: from Hunan Beginning (September 5), “Absolutely Approval of Hunan Monroe Doctrine” (September 6), “Hunan Suffered by China: Proof by History and Status Quo” (September 6-7), “Hunan The Autonomy Movement should have been launched” (September 26), “Hunan People Administering Hunan and Hunan Autonomy” (September 30), “Against Unification” October 10).
On November 7, 1931, the First National Congress of the Chinese Soviet was held in Jiangxi. The “Outline of the Constitution of the Chinese Soviet Republic” passed at the meeting officially announced the establishment of the second China-the Chinese Soviet Republic.
Mao Zedong clearly declared in the “Announcement of the Central Executive Committee of the Chinese Soviet Republic” on December 1, 1931, “From today, within the territory of China, there have been two absolutely different countries: one is the so-called Republic of China… and the other One is the Chinese Soviet Republic.”
Article 14 of the country’s “Constitution” more clearly states: “All ethnic minorities and people in all regions within China can separate from China and establish an independent nation.”
In October 1938, at the enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee in Yan’an, Mao Zedong proposed the “Anti-Japanese National War and the New Stage of the Development of the Anti-Japanese National United Front.” The report encourages “oppressed nations such as North Korea and Taiwan” to strive for independence.
On March 8, 1947, the Chinese Communist Party’s “Liberation Daily” published an article proclaiming: “Our armed forces under the leadership of the Communist Party of China fully support the struggle of the Taiwanese people against Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. We support Taiwan’s independence, and we support Taiwan’s establishment of its own. The requested country.”
According to the article, it can be seen that the CCP not only did not oppose the independence of a certain province or region in China, but also publicly encouraged and supported it before it seized power. This is an iron historical fact, which is well documented.
The article stated that the Republic of China was officially born in 1911 and became the first republic in Asia. It existed as an independent country thirty-eight years earlier than the “People’s Republic of China” under the Chinese Communist regime, and it has continued to this day. The Republic of China has a state-owned territory, a people, a democratically elected legal government, a constitution, an army, and a country with diplomatic relations. It has mutual visa exemption with more than 100 countries in the world, more than the mainland’s visa-free countries. These are all objective facts.
Since the establishment of the “Soviet Republic” in Ruijin, Jiangxi, the CCP has been splitting China and “independence” of the “state within a country.” Later, they admitted that Outer Mongolia had separated and established formal “diplomatic” relations with Outer Mongolia. In fact, the CCP was the initiator of inciting “independence” and division in China, but now it has become a defender of “independence” and “independence” who “opposes all forms.” This can only make people feel ridiculous.
Xin Haonian: “Taiwan Independence” was cultivated by the CCP
On March 6, 2005, Xin Haonian, a Chinese historian living in the United States, said at the third “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party” seminar at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. They have created civil strife in the country and become a “house thief” who undermined the path of the Chinese nation’s democratic establishment. During these decades, they have “done bad things in the name of revolution” by communicating with foreign countries.
He disclosed that in 1927, the Third International, the Communist Party of Japan, and the Communist Party of China drafted a Taiwan independence program for the Taiwan Communist Party (Taiwan was still under the colonial rule of the Great Japanese Empire at that time, so the term “Taiwan Independence” at that time meant independence from Japan. , Rather than independence from China); In 1928, the Communist Party of China drafted a new Taiwan independence program for the Taiwan Communist Party on the upper floor of a photo studio at No. 45 Xiafei Road, Shanghai; “Taiwan Nationality, Taiwan Revolution, Taiwan Independence”; and, China The Communist Party members also planned the February 28th Incident, which caused the tearing of the ethnic groups in Taiwanese society.
Xin Haonian went on to say: “In the 1970s, the main resources of Taiwan independence forces came from the Chinese Communist Party; the main leaders of Taiwan independence overseas were not only Marxists, but they also continued to return to the mainland and Beijing for training. Don’t I naively think that Taiwan independence is “not my race”, and Taiwan independence is “my race”, but it belongs to the Communist Party, “Marxist-Leninist (Marxist-Leninist) party family.”
“Even if there are many Taiwan independence people above my age in the United States today, they all claim to be glorious Marxist-Leninists. To this day, the Communist Party has shot itself in the foot. Taiwan independence. Today, Taiwan independence really doesn’t want to be Chinese anymore. They want to get out of China; they don’t want to be Chinese anymore, but they are still making peace with the Communist Party!”
“Don’t think that the Communist Party is holding high the banner of so-called nationalism against Taiwan independence today. It is not about reunification, but about united front; this is something we mainland Chinese people know well.”
Xin Haonian believes that as a Chinese, one must firmly oppose the Communist Party and the anti-China Taiwan independence forces that are inextricably linked to the Communist Party. He said that he understands that the vast majority of people in Taiwan do not want to be ruled by the CCP, but he cannot tolerate the so-called “partyization tradition” of the Communist Party to deny and slander all the words and deeds of the Chinese nation.
(Reporting by reporter Yuntao/Responsible editor: Qu Ming)
https://www.ntdtv.com/b5/2017/04/04/a1318742.html
Cloaked in Chinese nationalism. A fake nationalism.
Great point.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/tumblr-u/
A relatively short, but very interesting article. Oh my god, my generation (the Millennials) and those younger are going to ruin this country. I’ve been saying this for years.
Even though I can’t stand these young “activists” who are my peers, I do feel sorry for them in a way, because they are being used as pawns by Socialist forces.
Sadly true.
https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/16/the-problem-at-fox-news/
Neil Cavuto is my least favorite of the Fox News anchors, day or night, and I often skip his weekday afternoon show, because I am annoyed by his reporting/interviewing style. Not only do I not like his attitude, he is also very boring.
This article is right, I think, about Fox News’ young women anchors. After watching these ladies, I get the impression that they seem interchangeable and vacuous; it is hard to take them seriously–pretty Carley Shimkus, looking at you–because of this quality, what comes out of their mouths seems like inconsequential fluff.
Info-babes.
😉