For a long time I’ve held back on my actual thoughts on things, but nowadays I could care less. The actual operation of the entire society has become so absurd, backward, and irrational that it is now comical. For those aware, it is quite evident there is a long term plan to re-engineer and reorganize the western world in particular. The modern world is under the delusion that it has been freed from the prison of “superstition” and “dogma”: Altar and throne have been overthrown and now the “New Man” can arise from the ash heap of millennia of “dark ages” and oppression. Modernity has given us medicine and personal computers, right? Indeed, so onwards towards the great utopia! But is this so? Why do the day-to-day lives of those of use in modernity seem like everything but the great utopia? The previous millennia has seen a multitude of millenialist demagogues hellbent on establishing the “Great Society,” yet the he awakening public is becoming aware of the sense that modern utopia is really another form of enslavement, as even Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted on multiple occasions.
But what if the uprising of the masses is not really a good thing? Mass uprisings bring forth the reordering of society under a new hierarchy: not the elimination of hierarchy. Marshalling of the masses for political means has ever been the tool of petty tyrants, demagogues and gainsayers, as well as powerful larger interests. To understand the gigantic farce of the modern world’s beliefs about itself, it is to the ancient world that we must turn. This is a point you will almost never hear mentioned, so grab your pen and paper and get ready for notes. Following upon the French Revolution, most of the western world supposedly rejected monarchy and religion in favor of Enlightenment Republicanism. Obviously this doesn’t mean Sarah Palin and George Bush. By “republicanism” is meant the idea of a republic, and the idea of a republic cannot be divorced from Plato, and an analysis of the Republic should be given, but before that, the stream (or sewer) of millennial sects and movements must be explained.
Prior to the French Revolutionary Jacobins and so-called “illuminists,” came the medieval heretical sects of the Bogomils and Cathari that represented the most significant challenges to papal power. While never an organized front, the sectarians were able to wrest various sections of Europe from Roman primacy, while the compliment in the East could be seen as Islam, representing similarly a gnostic challenge to the Imperial Orthodoxy of Byzantium (such is the origin of Bogomilism, which birthed the western gnostic movements).
Also concurrent with these movements were the Catholic orders that had similar trends, like the Franciscans and pseduo-millennialists like Joachim of Fiore. The Joachimites and some Franciscans foresaw an era of mass pouring out of “the Spirit,” ushering in a “golden age” of humanity living righteously. In fact, Benedict XVI has even written concerning these connections in Joachim as follows:
“Ratzinger dug deep in his research. And he discovered that in Bonaventure, there is a strong connection with the vision of Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan who had prophesied the imminent advent of a third age after those of the Father and the Son, an age of the Spirit, with a renewed and entirely “spiritual” Church, poor, reconciled with Greeks and Jews, in a world restored to peace.”
I think there is a clear conduit from this to modern revolutionary movements. The Thomas Muntzer rebellion should also be mentioned as important currents of modern socialism, inasmuch as Muntzer attempted to practice perfect and total communism. It is also important that these centers of rebellion were France, Germania and Hungary: future centers of radical communism and “illuminism.” Renaissance humanism and the Reformation gave birth to the revolutionary movements of Illuminism and socialism, yet there are two crucial factors seldom mentioned in treatments of this subject that undergird all these trends: Plato and millennialism.
All the early Christian heresies had imbibed a heavy dose of Plato (or Neo-platonism, for good or ill), leading to a diverse set of philosophers and theurigists, from Origen to Proclus, who would in turn influence the orthodox and unorthodox fathers and sectarians for the next millennia. What characterizes many of the early Christain heresies is precisely the millennialism and imminent apocalypticism. Apocalypticism had been a prominent feature of first century Judaistic groups like the Essenes, as well as much of early Christianity. What sectarians learned was the psychological power of apocalypticism in the cultic setting to produced certain controlled effects in their underlings. By the Middle Ages, apocalypticism was still rampant amongst the peasants, although already rejected by both the Orthodox East and Roman West.
Apocalypticism (and I’m using “millennialism” in the sense of an imminent appearance of the eschaton) survived in the sectarian groups, preying on the superstition and gullibility of the peasantry, but took an interesting turn at the times of Joachim of Fiore, the Muntzer Rebellion and French Revolution. In these cases, millennialism began to be a positive utopian golden age that was coming, instead of the grim, savage views of the hellish Judgment Day that was prophesied, for example, in Savonarola’s revival. Now, the coming age was one of historical bliss, replete with the complete historical appearance of righteousness and supposed equality. In these cases demagogues and enthusiasts were impelled to see their own sectarian movements and pivotal in terms of the world-historical. As well as the dogma of social salvation, the communal movements listed also found a corollary for the Jewish and Christian doctrine of election, as the secret society heads and party members became the new elect. This is well documented in Malcolm Lambert’s classic scholarly text, Medieval Heresies, which I highly recommend.
Muntzer established a communal theocracy, Fiore saw a brotherhood of all men, and the French Revolutionaries saw rationalism and the return to the “natural state” as the redemption of all things in a social context. All of these millennial movements are therefore revolutionary, representing the anti-establishment power of their times. All of these movements utilized the power of apocalypticism that would entail a battle of good and evil, yet the Illuminists and Jacobins are unique in comparison to the past sects, as theirs was a secular aim. For them, the ills of humanity arise from a social setting, and the great battle is also fought in a social context.
The hierarchical view of the universe of the Middle Ages had to be overturned to establish the secular human view, with man at the center. Yet this was not enough, as the secular millennialists of France ended up turning on themselves, since the French Revolution was a revolution of the lesser nobility and merchant class. A few decades later, the merchant and money class would become the source of all present ills in Marxism. No longer was it a tyrannical monarchy, but instead the very system the revolutionaries of the previous ages had established: capitalism. To be clear, for Marx capitalism was a necessary stage succeeding feudalism, destined in materialist process to be followed by state communism and finally the “withering away of the state” with total libertarianism. Now go see how many “libertarians” know that real final stage Marxism is full and total libertarianism!
Later Marxists and “revolutionaries” would see capitalism as the source of evil, and offer different radical solutions with Bakhunin’s anarcho-Marxism, Lenin’s red state terror, or Trotsky’s violent revolution, wherein the proletariat would immediately rise up and throw off the capitalists oppression. In those cases, the workers became the church millitant, and the bankers and capitalists the forces of the devil and oppression. The key point here is that all these figures retain this element of millennial apocalypticism, as Gary North correctly points out in his Marx’s Religion of Revolution, as well as the Collins brothers in their classic article on Darwinism. Eric Voeglin also accurately connects the gnostic elements of cultural revolution and feminism. And from whence come cultural revolution and feminism? They come from Marxists, Gramscians and the Frankfurt School.
But what is the socialist idea of the great state (excluding the supposed final stage of libertarianism in Marx)? Where does it come from? Is it from Adam Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Hitler or some medieval heresiarch? It is from none of them originally: it is from Plato. All one need do is read Plato’s Republic to understand the origin of the state as the macrocosm body of the microcosm philosopher king. In fact, the notion of state controlled breeding and eugenics, communal property and authoritarian militarized government all arise from the Republic. Now some say these elements are “satire,” but I don’t think so, and neither have many dreamy-eyed dictators who have sought to erect the utopian state.
Those in the know, know good and well that the Third Reich was an attempt to build the Republic of Plato, which was in turn (according to Plato) supposed to be the divine State of Pharonic Egypt, based on Atlantis. And the Fabian socialists and communists want the same thing: a union of soviet republics. Did it never dawn on you that the USSR was the union of republics? Why would any “republican” get pissy, since the “Party of Lincoln” wants a republic union. The only difference is that the Republicans (the party) want to enact enlightened rationalistic government for a mass of people who can’t tie their shoes, much less figure out the intricacies of bureaucratic legalese and red tape. You’ll be glad to know Karl Marx wrote Lincoln glowing praise in a letter.
The Republicans and so-called “conservatives” are the liberals of the Enlightenment, still functioning as if the hellpit Republic of the Congo is just as “rational” as white man’s “Tea Party Patriots.” I’m all for political utility, so anyone who chooses to function within these existing entities is fine by me, but anyone who actually believes these entities are “conservative” is an ignorant fool. By definition, a nation born in Enlightenment revolution must, of necessity, be considered liberal. Conservative is monarchy, for heaven’s sake, while “republics” and “republican” government are Enlightenment liberalism, Illunimism and Plato’s statism. Anyone with any sense and education should know this, but you’ll never hear any of this on any “conservative” blog that’s out there, of any repute (that I’m aware of), although I’ve actually heard Glenn Beck and Alex Jones mention this in passing. And they mention it because they think those of you that are “awake” are just as stupid as the sheeple.
That said, mark my words, this present system is so irrational and backward you will see its collapse. As I wrote before, the propaganda of the present system is so hollow and nonsensical that the shock factor of recognizing its impossibility hasn’t even begun to set in for even the thinkers. In this regard far right thinkers are correct to point out that America is actually a few hundred years behind in failing to see that the Enlightenment is a failure. And since I don’t care anymore, I can openly say that the reason for that (as I’ve said many times) is the discovery of DNA. That race-specific bio-weapons now exist is really and truly the end of egalitarianism. It’s only a matter of time.
I say that not because of some imminent apocalyptic fear of a bio-release, but because of the immense meaning of this objective, factual discovery. The meaning of such a discovery is not even seen by the scientists themselves, as most of them still labor under the facade dogma of Darwinism: DNA means race is real and reality itself is infinitesimally ordered and encoded with information. And that means the universe the sickly, nihilistic West has tried to adopt and sell the past hundred years is pure bullshit. In a world with race-specific bio-weapons, feminists and Marxist professors can get their flat tops and pony-tails in a tizzy all they want: When the great culling comes, they will be the first to go.
You see, modernity has produced an almost innate sense of immediacy. There is an expectation of immediacy for everything: immediate fulfillment, immediate gratification, immediate information (or info-tainment), and this is a people easily ensared in the psychological warfare trick of immediate salvation from the state. The governing world system, however, does not want the salvation of the masses, but their orderly extermination. This is what Plato wrote of in The Republic, and from the elite perspective the destruction of most of the world’s population is for the purpose of evolving man into near godhood through transhumanism, eventually terrraforming other planets and ruling the galaxy. From that vantage point, we are at a threshold point in human history, and the transition into the storming of the heavens is held back by the “useless eaters.” To return to Atlantis (the reasoning goes) it is necessary to stop focusing on the “uplifting” of billions of animals who would just as soon kill you as accept your noble aid and assistance. This is too much for most people to learn, but regardless of one’s feelings on this matter, this is the dominant idea in elite circles. We read about Race-specific Bio-weapons in the famed PNAC document as follows:
“Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politicaly useful tool.”
Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us By: Bill Joy