Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Modern Mythology-Continuing A Look at the Ahrimanic Deception

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    *******I apologize for the long interruption in this series of articles on modern mythology but I am going to pick up now where I left off. To briefly recap,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 19, 2011

        *******I apologize for the long interruption in this series of articles on modern mythology but I am going to pick up now where I left off. 

         To briefly recap, what I've been picturing is the objective consideration of what we hand our children as an explanation for the world and life and a basis for making life decisions in our modern day--- as people before the past 300 years used to use the Bible. About 300 years ago began the so-called Enlightenment and scientific thinking, but, as I pointed out, science (meaning a method of reasoning) can never result in a "dogma" or in other words something that absolutely must be believed rather than tested---- but true science was gradually and surreptitiously replaced in the past century and a half by what C.S. Lewis called "scientism", the mere recitation of what "experts have concluded." This litany of what the experts have supposedly decided, is what is handed all of us as children in public schools and continued as our society's overarching paradigm through all our education as adults, rather than truly thinking for oneself and reaching one's own conclusions. 

          What this dogma consists of is a story of the world and life that runs something like this: the world is an enormous accident that just sort of happened, our earth is an accidental conglomeration of gas and dust from the sun, the first living cells accidentally arose from a chance meeting of chemicals in the Earth's early seas, perhaps bombarded by lightning, and these living things then randomly adapted to their environment, which is what has produced all the various forms of life including ourselves, who were once ape-like creatures but just happened to evolve a stronger brain. Our awareness of ourselves is just electricity in the brain, we are just a part of nature, and after death nothing survives; there is no afterlife or God, those were all primitive superstitions made up before science enlightened us.

          Every culture must pass on to its young a picture of the world and our place in it which they are then to use to make decisions in life. Now I want to move on to considering how this picture is to be applied, or in other words the ethics and morality based upon it. The old paradigm in Christian Europe was that man was created and placed here in life as a sort of testing: there was a definite good and an evil, and, as a conscious being, Man had to choose between these, and after death, he would be rewarded for the good he had done and punished for the bad. Now in our modern mythology, of course, we are not placed here by any higher consciousness or purpose and there is no accounting after death. For a long time after the Enlightenment began, people tried to have it both ways, saying there was no God or afterlife, but everybody should still try to be good for some reason. Only in the past 150 years or so, beginning with Nietzsche, have men had the honesty to admit that there cannot be any good or evil under this paradigm. In the social sciences during this time, there arose as a central tenet the "fact-value disjunction", in essence the teaching that things simply exist, they simply are, and any valuing we do of them, labeling them 'good' or 'bad', is purely subjective. A man labels as good what he likes and bad what he does not like, but there is no objective basis for any morality: all morality is relative. This can also be seen as a reaction to religion, as educated men wishing to deny the simplistic morality of traditional religions that they believed kept people from thinking.

         This is what has led to the enshrining of "non-judgmentalism" as the greatest virtue people can exhibit in our society. No one is supposed to judge anyone else's behavior, because all behaviors are equal, none have moral superiority. Very often however, the most dangerous "truths" are those which are really only half-truths. Tolerance is certainly a virtue, but the philosophy that teaches that all morality is relative will eventually find that nothing can be condemned, not the Nazi Holocaust, nor nuclear war, nor fundamentalist Moslems blowing up airplanes and office buildings full of innocent people. On the rare occasions when people are encouraged to think about these things, it must become clear very quickly that ALL behavior cannot be equal, that there must be SOME things which truly are worthy of the term "evil." But long training in refusing to discriminate and discern between different things leaves the mind without the tools to do so. In place of a dogma of rigid Good and Evil that educated men thought made their fellowmen judge too quickly and ignorantly, we now have one that just as rigidly FORBIDS the mind to think of ANYTHING as good or evil, to judge AT ALL.



        At this point, I would like to note the great distinction between the power of this paradigm in Europe and in America. The new mythology created by science, in which we are all slightly more clever apes in an accidental, purposeless universe and must reject all religions as outmoded superstitions, became mingled with political and revolutionary movements in Europe in the 19th century (Jacobinism, French Revolution, Marxism). The Church in Europe was regarded as a conservative force against which the proponents of the new paradigm had to rally; hence, where "scientific" Marxism triumphed, as in Russia, all churches were destroyed, and where a slightly more watered-down socialism took over in most of the rest of Europe, churches were severely restricted unless they signed on to the new movement and left their past behind. In most of Europe, so-called Christian churches are barely recognizable as such when compared with the Biblical Christian teaching or even the Christian Church 400 years ago.

         But from the beginning in America, the Protestant Christian church brought over from Europe was the backbone of revolutionary sentiment; there was no siding with the ruling class against the common people. There was no conflict between the Christian churches and science, either; it was only with the rise of dogmatic "scientism" that conflict arose, in the mid-19th century when Marxism and Darwinism were brought over from Europe. Only in the eastern United States which is heavily influenced by Europe has the Christian religion likewise adopted moral relativism and Marxism; in the largest part of the United States, people still side with traditional religion and not with the intellectual, allegedly-"scientific" point of view. This is because, in American history, religion has always been looked upon as an individual matter of freedom and, moreover, as the strongest refuge against dictatorship, because a man has the right to decide what seems correct according to his conscience, and this right comes from the divine, and is therefore higher than, and cannot be taken away by, any earthly rulers. Instead of being viewed with suspicion as a part of society which sides with the ruling class which revolutionaries want to overthrow, as in Europe, religion here has always been "revolutionary" in the sense of supporting progressive movements. As the anti-religion paradigm of the modern world began to seek to brand all churches as backward remnants of an outmoded past that had to be destroyed for progress to occur, it found many disciples in Europe but almost none in America (except in the intellectual Northeast with its heavy intellectual ties to Europe). 

         Today in America, the strongest advocates of free thinking and deciding things for yourself are frequently found, not in any "scientific" institutions, but in the Christian churches. People who have been raised in strongly religious homes go to public schools and ask for the evidence for the Darwinian theories and other parts of the modern paradigm, rather than swallowing them unthinkingly as their allegedly free-thinking, "nonreligious" fellow students most often do! Similarly, people raised in these supposedly backward environments are frequently the only ones to challenge the dogma of moral relativism that says there is no good and evil, arguing instead that there IS such a thing as morality and we human beings ARE faced with the necessity of making moral choices in life. 

         These American Christians are looked down on as barbarians by most Europeans for holding on to their traditional religion, just as the American President was once ridiculed as a "cowboy" for opposing Russian Communism as it tried to conquer Europe---- but he was right, and those who said it was a hopeless cause were proved wrong. Educated Europeans are so much under the sway of the new paradigm that they cannot understand the part of America that resists it. They say Americans are stupid for asking for things like that public schools teach all explanations of Man's origin, not only Darwinian dogma. Ignorant and unsophisticated they may be to the cultured European; but so was the boy who saw that the Emperor had no clothes on.   

      To Be Continued....


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.