When Karl Marx was writing his dangerous nonsense, he had critics, rarely known today, who wrote that his theories, if applied, would produce the worst tyrannies ever seen. And they were right.
How did they do this? Economics wasn't all that advanced then, but these men understood human nature. They deduced from correct first principles, and when you do that you can't go wrong.
The first one is that human nature is imperfect and cannot be fixed. The first even leftists will admit but not the second. They think with education and force people can be compelled to be perfect and happy. Utopia!
I'm written before the best way to understand the flaws in human nature is to memorize and understand the Seven Deadly Vices: Pride (grandiosity), envy, greed, wrath, etc.
When you start with those first principles, and add to them political power, then deduce from that what kind of society you would create. It's obvious it would be a Hell.
"By their fruits you will know them." "A house built on sand." Do those sound familiar? Ancient wisdom, easily understood.
The last article I posted pointed out the only way you can reproduce "social science" is through history. Unfortunately this can involve the death of millions (or hundreds of millions), as happened in the 20th Century, which was an attempt to overthrown ancient wisdom, based on millenia of history, and apply "new" principles.
This is why I am technically a "conservative," in the sense of "If it's not broke, don't fix it." This doesn't mean I don't believe in change, but there is a world of difference between advancements in cars and tinkering with societies.
Now apply this to the Manosphere. Its "first principles" are the beliefs in "alphas," "betas," "gammas," "omegas," "the Dark Triad," etc.
None of these concepts are based on hundreds if not thousands of years of history. Its principles are based on something completely new (at least in the fanatic's minds), which makes much of the Manosphere leftist. The first principles are unsound. A house built on sand.
It's an attempt to re-engineer human nature. It's not going to work, which is why the ideas of the Manosphere are going exactly nowhere. At least the bad ideas. There are some good ones, but they are based on old wisdom.
It's why in the long run frauds and and grifters such as "Roosh" and "Roissy" and "Vox Day" are going to fade away (notice how "Roosh" is trying to reinvent himself as some sort of Christian, and Vox Day as a science fiction writer. "Roissy" is just repeating his babble about "aphas" and sticking "shivs" into people.)
Ask yourself this: apply pride and envy and wrath and greed to the adolescent concepts of the Manosphere...and then ask yourself to where will these combinations will lead?
Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice Starling: He kills women...
Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...
Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just...
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?
Huh? Don't you have it the other way around, at least WRT Vox Day?
If this timeline is right, he is writing novels at least since 2000.
The archive of his Alpha Game blog dates back to March 2011, as evidenced here:
Who were Marx's contemporary critics?
What has Marx and his critics common with the topic of this post?
"Who were Marx's contemporary critics?"
W.H. Mallock, for one, whose book is listed.
Bob, you write as if Marx was the first propagator of "dangerous nonsense". There were others, on whose ideas Marx based his own (Engels called them "utopian socialists" to emphasize the difference with 'scientific' Marxism). Here is one example:
Less nonsensical than Marx? :)
I am well aware of Charles Fourier and Henri Saint-Simon. Marx had the worst effect of all of them. For all practical purposes Fourier was insane. Marx was just a hater and a liar.
For practical purposes, Fourier's nonsense could be realized with today's or near future's technology. Electrodes in the brain in dopaminergic areas that fire up during work. See? Disgusting, but not impossible in the technical sense.
Or if not electrodes, then this, once it gets more miniaturized and area-specific:
It requires genetic manipulation first to make neurons express channelrhodopsins, but has the most potential for abuse.
This makes me think, is there a possibility to design ion channel molecules that change their conformation after applying 'magnetic stimulation'? No need for electrodes or optic fibers, which might produce unwanted immune reactions from the living tissue they touch.
There was a similar science fiction concept called 'tasp' in the novels of Larry Niven, if my memory serves.
Do you know of this, Bob?
This time, not pleasure centers themselves, and not in response to specific stimuli. However, what besides ethical considerations could dissuade from creating 'high-tech slaves' in a similar manner?
If that doesn't count as 'dangerous nonsense', then I don't know what does. :)
"There was a similar science fiction concept called 'tasp' in the novels of Larry Niven, if my memory serves."
Niven, along others, whose names I cannot remember.
That would bring the issue of 'workaholism' to a whole new level. :)
Post a Comment