The Unreality Principle
Posted on 29 June 2011
Do they want to live?
This is from Frontpage Mag, an interview with one Rima Greene. She is one of the (alas, far too few) Jews of the Left who recognize the growing anti-Semitism of the Left.
She had been a member in the 1970’s of a rural all-women community of socialist feminists, but was shocked upon her return from a trip to Israel to discover that her feminist and lesbian friends favored the Arabs over the Israelis, even though Israel is the only nation in that part of the world where women can be free, and homosexuality is legal.
She found herself reduced to the status of an unperson, because the god of the Progressives is a jealous god, and no man can be Jewish, and have loyalties or love for his home, and also serve the Cause.
Please read the whole thing. It is fascinating and heartbreaking all at once.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/01/a-leftist-feminist%E2%80%99s-journey-out-of-the-political-faith/
When I was part of the Left, I thought “evil” and “enemy” were outdated concepts brought on by indoctrinated mental patterns. When I was at a peace camp in Portugal – a German peace community – I met the people who’d paraded through Israel with the banner: WE REFUSE TO BE ENEMIES. This is new age thinking, that you can refuse reality and just keep going on your merry way. We as Jews are targeted. We as infidel Americans are targeted. We are the ultimate prize as the Big Satan — although Jewish blood is the best for the West’s contemporary adversaries.
We do not grasp the mental universe of our enemies. Their obsession with our blood, their obsession with butchering us. They are like an army of vampires. They actually want to suck our blood. Especially Jewish blood. We in the West have not a clue. They do not just want to kill us any old way. Poison gas will not do. They want to spill our blood. I could never make this stuff up. That is what I was trying to sort out with the Daniel Pearl incident, but my friend tried to put a stop to my thinking by calling me a racist.
[…]
When I started really understanding that Israel is in continual danger because of a theological commitment to destroy us, and that includes me, as a target, my body got it, my creatural body that fights for its survival with everything it has. That is a missing piece on the Left. My old buddy from high school, a famous Jewish anti-Zionist academic, would rather die in a plane terror incident than have “racial profiling.” I said, “It could save your life.” He said, “I don’t care. It’s racist. I don’t care.” It was a kind of petulant: “I don’t care.” It’s like a three-year-old’s outlook.
[...]
On the Left, with the “universal” values supposedly which transcend the need of the Jewish people to survive, there’s an ideology that Jews are selfish for wanting to survive together, as a collective. It is raw naked anti-Semitism.
My comment: The central tenet of the cultic and hysterical called Leftism is what I call ‘the unreality principle.’ This is the principle, baldly stated, that reality is bad and unreality is good, therefore unreality is real.
The second tenet coming out of this first principle is that anything one would like to believe about Leftism is real, and the that facts are not real. Hence, the Leftist believes his cult is not a cult. To the Leftist, the Christians are cultists; but the Leftist and his fellow are merely awake and aware people in a land of foggy sleepwalkers. He and his are the only people who see the true danger from Global Warming, the danger of Zionism, the danger of Theocracy, the danger of Capitalism, and the danger from racism, sexism, and homophobia. All these threats are clear, present, impending, terrifying and justify any action, from simple suppression of the truth to riots to state-sponsored mass murder, that the imagination of man can conceive in his dark heart. Leftism is scientific and enlightened.
The third tenet is that there is no war, there is only rebellion. Any action fought overseas is merely the Vietnam was over again, and not the real Vietnam war, which was meant to protect the innocent from slaughter and slavery at the hands of inhuman totalitarianism (and which American was winning) but the make-believe version of Vietnam the television generation saw over their televisions: the world where dope-addled psychopaths and draftees burned villages in order to save them, fighting against a dignified yellow-skinned people who sought only the preservation of their lives and property against the evils of spreading world capitalism. Every war is that make-believe war: futile, useless, cruel, meaningless, evil, and something that sinister moneyed forces stir up for their own profit. I am old enough to recall when the Crusades of the Middle Ages were a matter of pride rather than shame. I am old enough to recall seeing World War Two portrayed in films and television as a noble war fought for a noble cause, not merely the collection of the firebombing of Dresden, the atom bombing of Hiroshima, the aggression of FDR and Churchill, and excuse for rounding up Japs into internment camps. Nowadays, even in comic books, our own government is always the enemy or in cahoots with the enemy: there is no foe but the Man.
This is all is eerily similar to the Gnostic belief that the world is an illusion created by an evil demiurge in order to trap the souls of us, we enlightened who are actually gods in disguise. Thou art God.
The unreality principle is a principal of despair. Despair is the default state of pagan man. It can take the form of grim stoicism, which vows to endure all suffering through self-reliant self-discipline; it can take the form of hedonism, which fiddles while Rome burns, and resents any imposition on its self indulgence fornications and abominations; it can take the form of Buddhist resignation to the world and the self as deceits, and escape promised only in the serene non-being of Nirvana; it can take the form of Confucian pragmatism, which concentrates on maintaining the social order, and does not fret about deeper questions of the origins of the universe or the meaning of life.
And, more to the point, it can take the form of the unreality principle, the idea that man is sufficient unto himself to invent his own life and his own reality by unleashing the power of make-believe. The Modern mind is too undisciplined for Stoicism, too sensuous for Buddhism, too individualistic and ungovernable for Confucianism. These are not the philosophies lazy fat and happy people find comfortable.
The nobility we normally associate with paganism, the dignity of Cato of Utica or Socrates who face death without flinching, or the grave good humor of Lao Tzu, the gravity of Pythagoras, the beauty the sculpture of Phidias, the beauty of a proof in Euclid — none of this is present in the modern version of paganism. This is because modern paganism is not paganism at all, but postchristianism, a corruption of a higher thing falling, not the innocent early growth of a low thing rising.
Despair can be seen in the art and literature of these modern heathens, which is why it is so ugly and ungainly: why they prefer Mervyn Peake to JRR Tolkien. You understand that a man in true despair does not long for the hope he has lost, he resents hope as a falsehood, a will o’ the wisp, and misleading or childish or unscientific. Their art and literature is based, not on an indifference to beauty, but a hatred of it. I mention the rise of movies whose only allure is to see the characters slowly and painfully tortured both physically and psychologically merely as an aside and an example. This is their world view.
One escape from the grip of despair is to cling to some pretty vision, some image in the clouds, and to pretend it is real so fiercely that one can deny the pain and emptiness that otherwise overwhelm. Ironically, this is the Leftist criticism of Christianity. They, who believe that the fairy unicorns of Gaea-friendly Green socialized welfare must save us from the bad goblins of global warming who otherwise will drown the planet next month, and accuse us, who believe in the Rights of Man as well as the Fall of Man, of being illogical and unrealistic.
WE REFUSE TO BE ENEMIES. If you clap hard enough, children, Tinkerbell will come to life again. That is the unreality principle.
Tenet, dignobble it!
Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
Thank you! I didn’t know this.
Clearly, I have spent to much time reading real property books. I also sometime spell “Statute of Liberty”.
Thank you, sir. I have made the correction.
This does not look too terribly dissimilar from a doctrine you may find familiar:
Now, I will concede that Jesus is not saying that by this means your enemies will cease to be enemies, or that evil ceases to be evil if not resisted, as a literal reading of the “refuse” slogan would indicate. And it is certainly reasonable to believe that the average hippie idiot believes he can have his cake and eat it too: No violence and the Jews would not be exterminated. But the practical effects would seem to be much the same: The Palestinians (or whoever) would get what they want, and there would be treasure in Heaven for those who gave it up.
What if the people who are being asked to give it up do not believe in Heaven, or believe that all will be equal in Heaven?
Nu, it was not my impression that Christ was setting forth a quid-pro-quo arrangement, whereby you turn the other cheek and therefore he lets you into Heaven. Either it is virtuous to turn the other cheek, or it isn’t; reward ought not to enter into it.
I was responding to your last line: “But the practical effects would seem to be much the same: The Palestinians (or whoever) would get what they want, and there would be treasure in Heaven for those who gave it up.”
Basing your politics on the expectation that people will act according to the Christian ideal of self-sacrificial love is a bad idea, especially when not everyone involved aspires to that ideal (or the reward for it) in the first place.
If a good king does not reward his loyal subjects for his good behavior, he is not a good king, is he?
“Now, I will concede that Jesus is not saying that by this means your enemies will cease to be enemies,…”
That is, of course, exactly the point and exactly the difference. That the practical effects are the same is what I am complaining about: the hippies do not get treasure in heaven, but think the world here on Earth, the domain of the Power of the Air, will reward them.
They don’t think they are asking to be martyred. They are just suicidally stupid. Whether you believe in heaven or not, anyone can see the difference between a martyr who expects to be killed for his non-resistance, and a peace activists who expects everyone to act like the British before Gandhi, and be Christian, and back down. (I assure you Caesar would not have backed down from a pacifist: it was not in his ethics.)
Agreed?
Definitely agree here.
I’ve never been able to grasp the rash of pacifism among the non-spiritual. It’s like they never thought about why we never saw pacifism before Christianity. Let’s face it, if you’re facing an enemy intent on genociding your race, pacifism won’t do anything but make his goal easier.
Come now, it’s been there since the beginning. Don’t fight and they’ll let you live is what makes Slavery possible. How long has Slavery been around? I think the reason that “Pacifists” are so represented in the Educated classes is because they know what Evil they are causing and can’t admit to their cowardice and have to built their intellectual fortress of justification to deal with it….
Partially disagree. What you’re talking about is an aim at survival. Yet often today pacifism is seen more as a way to enact change. Back then what we might call “pacifists” were probably aware of what their lack of resistance would lead to. Today, those claiming pacifism seem to be a lot more optimistic about their [lack of] actions.
Or they play white.
They are a lot more optimistic because they know the Marines will come to their defense.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2080
Robert, you might… appreciate this post where a pacifist learns that – upon becoming a father – there are limits to his pacifism.
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/04/06/of-abraham-and-isaac-peter-and-his-lambs-the-amish-and-heloise-how-becoming-a-father-has-made-me-rethink-my-pacifism/
When asking WWJD? it is always wise to remember that one possible answer is throw a fit and start to toss the furniture around.
In view of that, I suspect an interpretation that does not call for complete pacifism — one that, for instance, calls for a complete rejection of revenge as a motive — is more plausible.
A comment recently encountered: the Noo Atheists and the Analytical Philosophers are the only two classes of English intellectuals who have never written any poetry. I thought of this when you mentioned Phidias.
“This is because modern paganism is not paganism at all, but postchristianism, a corruption of a higher thing falling, not the innocent early growth of a low thing rising.”
John, I could not have said it better myself!
GK Chesterton not only could say it better, but did. I am paraphrasing him.
Despair: The Supreme Theme of Progressive Politics and Art…
The brilliant and insightful John C. Wright sums up the progressive worldview: Despair can be seen in the art and literature of these modern heathens, which is why it is so ugly and ungainly: why they prefer Mervyn Peake to JRR Tolkien. You understand …
You know, I’ve long suspected you’ve been around since then…
Since the 70′s? Yes. The Crusade did not stop being a matter of pride until the ‘Critical Theory’ Marxists in academia gained the ascendency. Back in my day, children were expected to be humble and proud of their country; the Critical Theory types have successfully reversed that so that they are humble about the country, not proud of it, but ever so ever proud of their darling little selves. And, as for the country, so for their nation, their civilization, their culture, their church, their race.
How anyone besides Prince Lucifer of the Darkness can have high self esteem for himself and only for himself while despising everything around him that made him what he is, is a mystery to me.
Well… yeah I figured that’s how things were in the 1370s.
I was struck by the quoted writer’s friend’s remark:
“My old buddy from high school, a famous Jewish anti-Zionist academic, would rather die in a plane terror incident than have “racial profiling.” I said, “It could save your life.” He said, “I don’t care. It’s racist. I don’t care.” It was a kind of petulant: “I don’t care.” It’s like a three-year-old’s outlook.”
What intrigued me is that I could see how this reaction — no doubt genuinely petulant and stubborn, and probably based more on refusal to admit the possibility of being wrong than anything else — might yet be the withered remains of a position I could respect.
Explained properly, that position might be: “I recognize that implementing racial profiling in air travel as a safety measure might well save lives, maybe even mine. But I genuinely believe that if such measures are adopted, even in the name of dealing with a real threat, they will not be taken off the books when that threat is defeated, and will only be abused to increase government power and control anyone a later government may find undesireable. I am willing to live with increased risk to my life, and even sacrifice my life, rather than resort to laws which, if not adopted with racist intent, can only aggravate racist divisions in society even if they save a few lives in the process.”
Considering this is exactly the position the wise of Middle-Earth take with regard to the Ring — some weapons are too dangerous and self-destructive to take up even in the name of saving life and home, and will render you and what you want to save not worth saving if you do — I can’t bring myself to disagree with the principle.
Whether the people involved are actually thinking that clearly, and understand the costs of their principles and are honestly willing to pay them, is another question. But one of the tragedies of despair is that it is always born of destroyed hope, and hope’s pieces can sometimes still be seen in the wreckage.
“Considering this is exactly the position the wise of Middle-Earth take with regard to the Ring — some weapons are too dangerous and self-destructive to take up even in the name of saving life and home, and will render you and what you want to save not worth saving if you do — I can’t bring myself to disagree with the principle.”
But of course. That is the whole trick of the intellectual: to take some strong and clear principle which makes sense in the context where it naturally fits, and then apply it to a situation where it becomes a pile of steaming nonsense. The resistance of the American colonists to the abuses and usurpations of the British Crown provoked what all true Americans regard as legitimate mutiny and rebellion. An intellectual is someone who runs a redlight and buys a stash of pot, and justifies his action with the same high-flown language as Jefferson justifying armed resistance to tyrants.
Likewise, the intellectual likens any small and trifling thing to the outrages, enormities, and genocide of Adolf Hitler. Being stopped at the red light or searched for a dime bag of junk is akin to the invasion of the goose-stepping Third Reich.
And so you have the absurdities as listed above: here is a man willing to die rather than take common sense steps to deter enemy sabotage in wartime. He likens seeking Muslim bombers among Muslims to race-hatred, which is the only evil and the only source of evil in his limited mental universe, and he too stupid to notice the difference between a religion and a race, and too fanatical to admit that self preservation is the motive rather than race hatred.
So he would rather lose the war.
He manages at once to be absurd and dangerous, pigheaded and comical, and a traitor, merely because he cannot distinguish between reality and the overheated rhetorical of his world of make-believe.
To him, seeking the enemy among the enemy is indeed like using the One Ring, a weapon too dangerous to use, and it is the rise of the Fourth Reich. He is suffering from a neurotic disorder called Oikophobia. This is the opposite of xenophobia, the pathological fear and hatred of strangers. Oikophobia is pathological fear and hatred of your own home, and of the soldiers and policemen who mean to protect you.