
August 2008
IDEAS AND THEIR TENUOUS CONSEQUENCES
BY Sy Schechtman
It
has been said that no army has been powerful enough to withstand the force of
an idea whose time has come. To which
Joseph Stalin is said to have responded contemptuously, “Oh
yes? How many legions does the Pope
have?” And , in this very hypothetical
dialogue, another great villain of the last
century, Mao Tse Tung, declaimed that “justice is delivered from the barrel of a
rifle”. And then there was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s
minister of propgaganda, who
campaigned in print for Nordic, Aryan superiority and the eugenic, holy goal of
eliminating inferior peoples who were a threat to the purity of these
noble people, the “useless eaters”----Jews,
gypsies, and other non heterosexuals and criminals. Hundreds of millions of people lost their
lives as part of the foul,
frightening dialogue and reasoning that swept thru the world accompanying this most lethal last century.
A recent book
by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D, Ten
Books that Screwed Up the World, and 5
Others That Didn’t Help, deals directly with these noxious ideas causing so
much mortal unhappiness—and mortal death and destruction. Wiker’s
prime candidates for dishonorable indictment include Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Darwin,
Nietzsche, Lenin, Sanger, Hitler,
Freud, Mead, and Kinsey. Atheists all,
and according to Wiker their prime
fallacy is the spiritual degradation this has caused. “…..it is man, not the world, that is
fallen……There’s something profoundly wrong with us…..some crack or deep taint
that is largely incurable because it is invisible, a temporal twist that begins in the soul and
curls its way outward. The cracks in the
soul become more visible when they are ignored……(and are) most visible when the
twisted soul tries to rid the world of
the very idea that each individual has a
soul accountable to God. The authors we’ve examined who have taken a turn at twisting
the screw that have screwed up the world all have this in common. They all deny
sin.”
Niccolo
Machiavelli, whose book, The Prince (1513),
is still admired and abhorred, and was
on the night table of that first class atheist and revolutionary, V.I. Lenin,
who installed successfully the
Communist state in
Machiavelli guides
the Prince in realpolitik. One
must be effective to be a successful leader.
A proper blend of realism and idealism at the proper time. “For man
who wants to make a procession of
good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence
it is necessary to a Prince, if he wants
to maintain himself, to learn to be able
not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity”.
Still
despairingly true today.
Sincerity versus duplicity! The necessary twist of the truth for the
ultimate good. Lyndon Johnson escalating
the war in
Besides Lenin, Hitler, indeed, must have had copy of Machiavelli’s “the Prince” on his night table. And this “last demand” of his finally produced the Western
allies desperate response of retaliating and starting the most catastrophic world wide war
ever.
Several
centuries later Jean Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778) powerfully influenced humanity’s thinking not by suave and
sophisticated duplicity but by the siren
song of humanities’ innate
sensuality. A born “nature boy” he strongly advocated the reversion to Edenic times and profound sweet
simplicity of that pure, but easy life. “The first person, who having fenced off a
plot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mine and people
simple enough to believe him, was the
true founder of civil society. What crimes, murders, what miseries and
horrors would the human race have been spared by someone who, uprooting the stakes or filling in the ditch,
had shouted to his fellow-men: beware of
listening to this imposter;you are lost if you forget the fruits belong to all
and the earth to no one!” Rousseau’s
message was distinctively anti technologic, and the impending industrial
revolution that would provide more material wealth for rich and poor and an
inevitable inequality in its sharing.
“All
ran to meet their chains thinking they
secured their freedom….Such was…the origin of society and its laws, which gave
new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, destroyed natural freedom
for all time , established forever the law of property and inequality, changed
a clever usurpation into an irrevocable
right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the
whole human race to work, servitude and
misery.” Back to the Garden of Eden,
when Adam the bucolic shepherd and gardener would live happily ever
after with Eve in peaceful male dominance. Why not? Biblically speaking, she was
engineered by God when Adam was in a deep sleep
from one of Adam’s ribs.
Many utopian ideas were inspired by
the lure of the simple nature state and an uncomplicated equal sharing economic
system. Sex with no lasting
emotional entanglements. And the care of
infants not particularly stressed.
The worship of the human body in
its unclad state even unto select nude beaches.
As noted above Rousseau bemoaned the
inequality created by property rights
growth and individual land owenership and retreated back to nature’s
uncomplicated simplicity . As the
industrial revolution progressed and more wealth was created the Roussean
naturism ideal was supereceded for
many with the Marxist Engels ideal of more equal wealth distribution---
Communism and socialism. Not retreating into an a Garden of Eden paradise but going
forward and harnessing the growing technologic beast for human needs. And
ultimately a workers paradise free of the slavery of capitalistic exploitation,
a proletarian production bonanza for the
hitherto oppressed worker. Hence the
rousing Marxist exhortation WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
Actually
an enormous totalitarian bonanza of
oppression and long term prison for
those who visibly objected and did not
understand all the benefits the new workers paradise offered.
In
more recent times, modern echoes of
these ideas and the Darwinian survival
of the fittest credo, which we have not
elaborated on because of time and space constraints, have decidedly impinged on our thinking and
choices. Natural Selection,
A
most recent addition to the mix of dubious ideas of human motivation is the
unsettling Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Alfred Kinsey, published in
l948. This thoroughly documented case
study volume of great length was much
more than the usual sleep inducing night time soporific. Indeed it became a best seller over night. Several years later his second book, Sexual Behavior in the Human
Female also attracted great
interest. And a good deal of dissent
and unhappiness among many expert and lay people. Perhaps the most controversial statistic was the claim that about 10% of the
population was homosexual. (Many other
experts today insist that the figure is about 3%. ) Most shocking, perhaps, was the claim
that 50% of women before marriage had had sexual intercourse, and 25% indulged
in extra marital sex. And masturbation
was very prevalent; about 90% male and 60% female.
The
weight of professional criticism was the lack true random sampling. The use of available volunteers, students
and prisoners and selected middle class university employees. The criticism of the clergy was that sex
was viewed with no relation to soul.
Just another animal function.
Bestiality, and homoerotic sex
are also evident in the entire animal spectrum—including homo sapiens-- and all are judged equally normal since all are evident in nature to
some extent. No good or evil. Procreation
and child rearing not blessed, holy
virtues.
And
his personal life, as revealed in subsequent biographies, was cluttered with all sorts of weird sexual homo
erotic and bi sexual events. To his detractors the total Kinsey package seemed to be a leveling of the field of sexual morality to
an uncomfortably inappropriate level.
As, of course, most of the
ideas and events discussed herein seem
to stimulate and sanction. But this total dour package can also be therapeutic, too. Facing reality and our inadequacies can be
part of the corrective process.
But
how do we “do unto others as we would wish them to do unto us” when, as with
Hitler and Stalin, and most probably the Jihadists of Islam, they manifestly
wish to destroy or completely dominate us?
How does humanity’s twisted soul
again “love Thy neighbor neighbor”?
/