How to Make a Collectivist Nervous
In a previous post on the “Peace and Justice” movement, I observed that the ideology behind the movement is reactionary. I would like to expand this thought, and consider the fact that all collectivist ideologies—including socialism, communism, fascism, and now multiculturalism/diversity—share this trait. Consciously or not, they work to return mankind to the animal or herd-like existence that existed before the layer of civilization they so despise was added.
In the same way that contemporary “art” seeks to divorce us from the magnificent creations of our past, collectivism attempts to divorce us from civilization in its broadest sense, particularly the life of the individual. This becomes more apparent when we consider some of the threats that civilization poses to our politically-correct professional levelers:
The arts. In this category I include fine art, music, literature, etc. Nothing makes a collectivist nervous like true art. Try this simple test: Show one of your Leftist friends or relatives some classic works, whether in a museum, an architectural tour, or even a coffee-table book. He will be in awe, but you will notice an underlying distraction. It may manifest itself in a twitching facial muscle or other physiological disturbance.
At the end of the presentation, mention how brilliant the artists are and how beautiful the works. You will then be treated to a release of tension caused by your test subject’s overflowing cognitive dissonance. You will hear “Yes, but…” to be followed by “they had slaves,” or “the styles were dictated by the academy,” or “it was just an extension of religion” or “the technique was great but where are the ideas,” etc. Which leads us to our next threat…
Beauty. Beauty in all its forms is a slap in the face to collectivism. It is incorrigibly individual, distinctive, and unplanned (in the bureaucratic sense). The revolt against beauty in our era is so widespread that we take it for granted. Think of some major examples of architecture in the West since WWII: more than likely, it is ugliness incarnate.
Reason. The faculty of reason and rational thought are anathema to collectivism because reason is a distinctively human characteristic, raised above the herd mentality. All of modern socialist thought, from Saint-Simon to Sartre, from Engels to Marcuse, constitutes a revolt against reason. Its corollary, as Hayek so brilliantly explains (see his Counter-Revolution of Science), is the misuse of science to give their harebrained “theories” the veneer of scientific inquiry.
It is no accident that Marcuse called for a return to fantasy as one of the bases of a future collectivist society. He is drawing upon the same depths of the animal side of man as were the Nazis, bringing fantasy out of the closet, as it were, and turning it into an electrifying motivational force that can spark a mass movement.
The historical record. Here I am speaking of the performance of regimes that embody the collectivist ideal, compared with those that reject it.
Every collectivist state in history, from the Inca empire to North Korea, is a sewer of suffering, oppression, cruelty, dreariness, hopelessness, and the destruction of the human mind on all levels. Mention this to your Leftist friends, sit back, and enjoy the ensuing display of intellectual acrobatics.
The Judeo-Christian tradition. I almost wrote “religion” here, but the fact is that some religions harmonize well with collectivism, exhibiting a trend toward nihilism and the extinction of the individual will.
“Judeo-Christian tradition” is a very wide net, and of course Judaism and Christianity are at odds on many points (not to mention the diverse Christian sects vis-à-vis each other), but one aspect they share is a focus on the life of the individual and his spiritual fulfillment. Certainly, there is a strong collective side, but at the end of the day each person develops his own private relationship with God. He cannot be excused from immoral behavior based on some rampaging ideology that will save the world. The world will rather be saved via the aggregate impact of proper behavior on the part of individuals.
Furthermore, man is created in the image of God; he is raised above the rest of the creation. He is given the responsibility to transcend his animal nature and improve himself. This is clearly intolerable to collectivist ideologies, which seek to return man to his animal state, to the herd, in which we are all equal and interchangeable.
Bookmark this article!
February 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Sir, your posts are so fantastic that I imagine your readers are akin to crack addicts – they can’t wait until you give them their next hit, that is, your next post. And I’m sure they suffer a painful withdrawal until you hook them up.
Such is the case with yours truly.
Keep on enlightening us, Mr Wolfe! It’s like butta.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
fayth1978: Thank you very much. Glad you’re enjoying AWOL.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Your comments regarding religion brought to mind various utterly absurd ‘neo-pagan’ religions.
Specifically, things such as Wicca come to mind, where all Gods are one God, and all Goddesses are one Goddess, regardless of their culture, where it’s perfectly acceptable to pray to a deity from some utterly alien tradition.
Even within the Asatru ‘community’, it’s fast becoming anathema to discuss any kind of relationship between one’s ethnicity and spiritual path.
Also, consider the approval that collectivists seem to have for Buddhism – itself a denial of all that is beautiful and noble within the world.
True pagan religions honoured the world, including the natural world, but also including the world of spirit – the heroic ideal, becoming like the Gods. If one reads the works of literature and poetry left behind by our ancestors, one realizes that they celebrated ideals which were as far removed from modernist dogma as is possible.
When Atli tortured Hogni, and tried to convince him that his brother was dead, Hogni demanded proof. They cut out the heart of a slave and presented it before him, but Hogni could tell the difference between the heart of a coward, and that of his brother, king Gunnar.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
It’s the left who adamently defend political correctness in order to uphold civilisation.
Collectivists do not despise civilisation and it’s naive to think as such; however, if you consider capitalism, in its exploitative and unfair nature, civilisation, then I can see where you have made your mistake.
PC is not designed to limit liberals’ freedom or to piss off prejudice, security-seeking tories, it is there to help defend basic human rights. Why should a black man been the victim of racial hatred? Why should women be discriminated against? And if, on occassion, someone is pedantic about PC, it is a small price to pay for the defence of everyone’s civil rights.
There is a YouTube clip of Stewart Lee talking about PC that may interest you. Or at least piss you off
.
Rachel.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Rachel,
Excellent satire! Collectivist human rights’ records are impeccable and it surely is not politically correct for Gary to question them!
March 12th, 2008 at 6:11 am
[...] How do you make a leftist nervous? Thanks to “AWOL Civilization” for posting this one: [...]
March 25th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I can see what you are getting at but you confuse collectivists with Leftists in general. Many individual anarchists, nominally of the Left, are great appreciaters of the artistic impulse and do not pursue a reductionist and mediated view of what constitutes genius.
I for one am a strident critic of postmodernism as I believe in great art. I am also very much of the Left. Where do I fit in to your argument?
March 26th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Grant: A very good question. I would of course need to know more about how you see yourself as “Left” while being a critic of postmodernism. In any case, it makes you a very rare species, being that the contemporary Left (I realize that the term is broad) has swallowed the postmodern narrative in its entirety; in fact, this is essentially what defines it.
Perhaps my post on “Good Old Marxism” may be of interest to you.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Good point but theres some flaws:
1. Liberals don’t change their minds no matter how much you prove anything to them
2. Liberals would get violent after five minutes of this
3. Christianity and Judaism are more different than any two factions of Christianity alone. Why do conservatives keep saying this word? It’s an oxymoron.
What they celebrate as “art” is usually something they know shocks AND offends (needs both) and they pre-plan to “defend” it…whether it has any artistic value at all…but this shock can only be shocking the right, not the left.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Travis: Your points are well taken. Regarding “Judeo-Christian tradition???: I agree, the term is sometimes stretched. The two faiths of course differ in many ways. But when considering the roots of our civilization, or when comparing our civilization to others, it is a useful construct. For example, citing the Ten Commandments as “Judeo-Christian??? helps to convey the depth and age of this cornerstone of our ethical system. (By the way, welcome to AWOL!)