Friday, 16 November 2012

The religion of State.

W. F. Price found an anti-Semitic screed by a feminist who calls Jews, and especially Holocaust survivors, "Judenscheisse" ('scheisse' being the German word for 'shit'). This was published at mainstream site Jezebel. Pretty horrendous stuff, but what interests me is this section:
during a family dinner conversation about Terri Schiavo, my father made the serious request that should he fall into a vegetative state, he would like for us to keep him on life support indefinitely. Today he and I are estranged for a number of other reasons that are all somehow the same reason.
I find it bizarre that anyone would become estranged from their father because he mentions that he would prefer to live than to die, even in a coma. First of all, isn't that his decision to make, and no one else's? How can anyone else believe they have the right to decide whether another lives or dies - and how can anyone believe they are so entitled to make that choice, that they fly into a rage when that person disagrees?

But then I remembered that this is a feminist. Feminists are typically high-conflict, neurotic people, prone to drama, tears, and other histrionics, and fundamentally lacking in gratitude, even for those who raised them. Almost every feminist I have known has been estranged from her family, or has harbored a deep resentment towards them.

As I said in my post on penis envy, Freud wrote mostly nonsense but did stumble upon the occasional insight. In his book Civilization and its Discontents, he writes about the common man's psychological need for religion. Religion, for the common man, is:
the system of teachings and promises that on the one hand explains to him, with enviable thoroughness, the riddles of this world, and on the other assures him that a careful providence will watch over his life and compensate him in a future existence for any privations he suffers in this. The common man cannot imagine this providence otherwise than as an immensely exalted father.

[...]

The life imposed on us is too hard to bear: it brings too much pain, too many disappointments, too many insoluble problems. If we are to endure it, we cannot do without palliative measures.
Growing up involves the harsh realization that the world is cruel, not only in the acts of human beings, but also in nature. The father cannot protect the child, let alone himself, against all possible threats and fates. He cannot provide food in a famine, nor can he fight off armed soldiers who have come to deport him and his family to a concentration camp. We could all die unjustly, painfully, without compensation ever being paid. This jars with the earlier conception of childhood, the belief in the invincible father who acts as the child's personal bodyguard and benefactor.

Freud's point is that, having developed an association in early life with the protective father, we develop a 'schema' (to use later psychological jargon) that outlasts the actual father. To rescue ourselves from the distress that comes with realizing the cruelty of the world, and the impotence of the father, we simply construct a new father in his place: bigger, stronger, more powerful - in fact, infinitely powerful - and who is deeply interested in our plight on a personal level, who shows his love for us through suffering, and who promises that our good conduct will go rewarded, and the wrongs committed against us will be punished.

Religion, for Freud, is a defence mechanism; a way of insulating ourselves from cold, hard reality. But what about the new liberals, who believe in Reason rather than God? Does the psychological need for the immensely exalted father simply disappear when we give up religion?

Of course not, because religion is the effect, not the cause. Giving up God simply means that this need will have to be expressed elsewhere. And it is - in the new liberals' fanatical worship of the State.

With Nazi Germany in living memory, the Soviet Union having only just collapsed, and North Korea still in existence, the new liberals defy all history and morality and insist that the state is necessarily a force for good and must be strengthened in every way possible.

Rejecting God as the stuff of children's stories, they tell each other their own fables about the new father they are constructing. This father, like the old God, will provide for each one of his children, and cares very deeply about social justice.

And much like the religions of olde, Statism does not only provide and protect, it punishes, in the here and now, all those who refuse to bow down before the deity. It is well known by now that the USA incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. The state zealotry of new liberals is largely responsible for locking up more black men, as a percentage of the population, than South Africa did under apartheid. There are more people languishing in US prisons today, than people who did time in Stalin's gulags.


Don't look for logical purpose here; it's the effect of psychological dependency, the need for an omnipresent, omnipotent father. That explains why child support is to be extended until the 'child' is 26 under the new liberals' beloved Obamacare. Expect that number to creep higher and higher until it covers an individual's entire life. At that point, the new liberals will have established the eternally protective father in the form of the state. Until that point, all their achievements fall short.

It can't happen, of course - it's unsustainable, someone needs to actually be earning the money, there needs to be incentive, and so on. Yes, liberals make poor economists. But then they're starting from psychological needs, not economic first principles. That the world will not bend to their will shall not discourage them from trying to make it so.

How does this all tie in to feminists estranging themselves from their families? Like this: feminists too are dealing with the shock of the father being less than ideal, less than invincible, and so on. Their level of entitlement is even higher than the average new liberal, and the notion that they will not be eternally coddled is so fundamentally shocking to their way of thinking that they grow to hate the father (and the family by association), as if it is his fault for keeping his coddling from her - as though he could choose to coddle her eternally, but chooses not to.

The failure to agree with her ideologically is a failure to coddle; it's a failure to assure her of her moral rightness. While most people would simply accept the difference of opinion and move on, without letting the disagreement damage their relationship, the feminist is too immature to deal with another point of view. The existence of another viewpoint is threatening to her own. And her father's refusal to coddle her, to assure the big baby that she is sooo smart and enlightened and strong and independent, is taken as a personal attack.

Even when it concerns his own life, and his opinion is that he would prefer it to continue.

- Mojo

No comments:

Post a Comment