Skip to content

The Budding Flower Of Savagery [UPDATED]

18 May 2015 @ 09:44

Richard Fernandez, writing over at the Belmont Club:

…Many years ago I wrote a post called the Three Conjectures in which I argued that the whole point of the War on Terror was to nip it in the bud, because once things got bad, once things got out of hand, the liberal Western populations would be begging their leaders to commit any atrocity — any atrocity at all — to keep them safe and fed. We think of ourselves as civilized. Yet mortal danger and need have a way of wearing away the veneer of civilization leaving only the raw human animal underneath. The Guardian may well appeal to “humanity”, but it should always remember that it was “humanity” — the base humanity which we don’t like to think about — which caused these tragedies in the first place.

The first rule of civilization is to preserve it. Once enough of it is conceded to barbarism, when a sufficient quantity of it has been worn away then things tip over entirely into savagery. It goes right over the cliff. The lesson of the Second World War was that anyone, pushed hard enough, could be an animal. We’re not there yet. But we’re on the way.


One of the biggest of The Big Lies the Left has successfully sold to the peoples of The West is that Man is, in fact, not Fallen, that the mass of Mankind can achieve Perfection, that Heaven On Earth, as it were [since they’re Atheists], can be brought about if just everybody would wake-up and drink the Kool-Aid of the Masterminds, of the Enlightened possessors of the Gnosis [‘Secret Knowledge’].

The acceptance of this deranged way of thinking, or looking at the World, leads inevitably to a profound and utter disappointment when Reality finally intrudes and the Believers find themselves threatened with Destruction, Misery, and Death.

At that point, these despondent Believers react with intense and uncontrolled emotions, demanding an animal-like immediate response.

At that point, Humanity and Civilized behavior are tossed aside and Savagery is promoted and condoned.

One need look no further than the two World Wars of the 20th Century for examples of this, where Total War was given lease to defeat our Enemies.

World War II was especially Tragic [in the Classical sense] because it was The West that allowed it to be a world-wide war. With the governments of The West firmly in Leftist hands, the Totalitarians were permitted to build-up their armed forces and slaughter innocents within their own boundaries and become emboldened enough to launch their nefarious plans of Domination, while The West did worse than nothing: they appeased.

In their Arrogance, their Conceit, their Hubris, leaders such as FDR and Chamberlain believed that their ‘superior intelligence’ would allow themselves to manage Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and the Imperial Japanese through Appeasement and their Enlightened Supervision.

Nemesis, as always, had other plans and the World was plunged into Holocaust.

And, in their Panic and Desperation and Impatience, the West resorted to a Barbarity that, at times, nearly matched the Totalitarians.

The same situation is happening again. The song remains the same and it is horribly out-of-tune with Reality. The needed lessons were not learned and this time, given that our Enemies are much more savage then even the Nazis and the Japs [or our Communist ‘allies’] were, we will find ourselves in a Conflagration where the Enemy will not hesitate to use nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Nemesis takes no prisoners, shows no Mercy, grants No Quarter.

Seest thou how God with his lightning smites always the bigger animals, and will not suffer them to wax insolent, while those of a lesser bulk chafe him not? How likewise his bolts fall ever on the highest houses and the tallest trees? So plainly does He love to bring down everything that exalts itself. Thus ofttimes a mighty host is discomfited by a few men, when God in his jealousy sends fear or storm from heaven, and they perish in a way unworthy of them. For God allows no one to have high thoughts but Himself.


UPDATE at 2011…

In the Comments section, Friend In The Ether GeoffB linked this 2008 post by himself that I highly recommend reading [additional text added by him in 2009 to be found enclosed in brackets]:

December 24, 2008

The Perfectibility of Mankind and the Left

One of the basic differences between the Progressive Left and Conservatives/Classical Liberals is on whether or not humans can be, or be made, perfect in this world. The perfectibility of mankind.

To Conservatives humans can never be perfect in this world. For the religious conservatives man achieves perfection only when joined with God. In this world perfection is to strive for, but will never be achieved. Failure happens to all and is forgivable. One should acknowledge ones failures. Vow to not have it happen again. Apologize to those injured. Seek forgiveness. Show remorse. Make amends. Be punished if society deems it necessary. In politicians, as in others, perfection is not sought. The perfect not being possible then Conservatives seek the best available in an imperfect world of choices.

On the Progressive Left, the Socialist Left, humans are perfectible. The imperfections seen are explained as due to, the circumstances that people are in, how they were brought up, how they were educated, how they were treated and seen by society. To the Left people would be perfect if the world around them could be adjusted to not destroy their innate perfection. This is the Utopia sought. The world must be perfected so all humans will be perfect.

Politics is the means used so as to bring this perfect world into existence for all humans. Force being necessary to change all the world to the perfect state so all will live in perfection. This brings up an interesting thing.

To change the world so that humans will be perfected someone must know/discover the method that will perfect humans. That person will have to be perfect. They will have either lived a life where the circumstances of their life allowed their innate perfection to exist unchanged and thus their whole life is the method to perfection. Libraries of books are devoted to minute examination of the immaculate life of the “Dear Leader” in these cases. Or they discovered the way to adjust their imperfect life to be a perfection of life. This leads to books written about the way to perfection. Either way they are the perfection of humans. Being perfect they will naturally rise to the leadership of those seeking to perfect humans, the Left.

All charismatic leaders on the Left are assumed to be that perfection of humans, incarnated. They cannot do wrong. They are infallible. And must always be perceived as that, always, every time, everywhere. If shown to be fallible, then their leadership must be rejected. Failure, in a leader, is not an option on the Progressive Left. Any failures brought up by their political enemies must be vehemently, even violently rejected as lies. [The failure surely lies further down the leadership chain with some minion who will be chastised and summarily dismissed. ed] Any acceptance of a fallibility is sure cause for that leader to be tossed aside in the search for “The One” who will lead mankind to perfection.

This also leads to the belief that asserting or proving the fallibility of leaders on the Conservative side will cause those leaders to be rejected by Conservatives. When this doesn’t happen, because Conservatives don’t consider their leaders to be other than fallible humans, the Left finds it inexplicable. We must be in line with every move, every position, every word spoken by Bush, McCain, [Limbaugh, Glen Beck, ed] or any other person seen as a leader on the Right. When we aren’t, and find it amusing that they think we should, they are flummoxed. Much as we are about their rejection of any imperfection in whoever is the perceived leader on the Left. Obama at this time, Bill Clinton in the 90’s. So much time and energy of the Left is spent rewriting all of reality to conform with the belief in a leaders perfection. It is the main occupation of many academics, journalists, and most trolls.

  1. Shermlaw (RS) permalink
    18 May 2015 @ 10:16 10:16

    Many in the Western political elite, whose interest is only about attaining and then maintaining their own power over the hoi polloi, make the fundamental mistake of believing that their opponents are similarly minded. That is, they project rationality upon our enemies and then act as if the imams of ISIS or Tehran or Pyongyang or any of the myriad of other locales are merely trying to preserve a position at the trough. Add that in with their exoteric pronouncements about Man being perfectible and you reach the point where we are now.

    Our enemies are either insane or directed by motives that the worthies of the West do not and cannot understand. No appeal to rational self-interest will sway the jihadi who believes Allah has commanded him to behead infidels and for whom Western Civilization is anathema.

  2. 18 May 2015 @ 11:38 11:38

    Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.

  3. DeadMessenger permalink
    18 May 2015 @ 14:12 14:12

    I can easily understand the thinking of the jihadis, in the sense that no amount of rational self-interest would cause me to deny my Lord and God. I think the problem is less the jihadis and more “the worthies of the West [who] do not and cannot understand”. If they did understand, they would surely know the difference between those who are meek and loving, and those who are not, and act accordingly.

    But the worthies of the West and the jihadis are ultimately playing for the same team, after all.

  4. 18 May 2015 @ 14:47 14:47

    You reminded me of something I put up a seeming lifetime ago.

    “The Perfectibility of Mankind and the Left,” a lost PW pub post from 2008, preserved by the Wayback Machine.

    • 18 May 2015 @ 19:29 19:29

      Just read the post you linked and found it rather insightful. May I reproduce it as an Update to this post?

      • geoffb5 permalink
        18 May 2015 @ 19:55 19:55

        Of course you may. Just clean up the artifacts that seem to crop up in place of double and single quotes in old posts at PW if you would.

        • 18 May 2015 @ 20:09 20:09

          Thank you…and I will [must keep up standards, don’t ya know].

      • geoffb5 permalink
        18 May 2015 @ 20:20 20:20

        I think the whole “Iraq, would you invade knowing what you know now” line of questioning is premised on the idea that any imperfection must cause a candidate to be rejected totally, and so they fish/troll for imperfections.

  5. 19 May 2015 @ 08:00 08:00

    For years I thought the secular left (redundant) was a religion, yet I didn’t have sufficient clarity to understand what I was seeing. Now I do.

    “The more we come to know about the gnosis of antiquity, the more it becomes certain that modern movements of thought, such as progressivism, positivism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, are variants of gnosticism.”
    — Eric Voegelin, Science Politics and Gnosticism, Two Essays, 1968.

    Here is a succinct explanation of this process from British philosopher R.T. Allen:

    “To understand [alienation] we have to go back behind Hegel, the immediate
    source of Marx’s ideas, to Hegel’s own ultimate source: viz. Gnosticism.
    For alienation is the central theme of Gnosticism, along with the
    saving knowledge of how we became alienated, and from what, and of
    how we can escape from it. That theme is summarized in the Valentinian

    ‘What liberates is the knowledge of who we were, what we became;
    where we were, whereinto we came; what birth is and what rebirth.’

    All the Gnostic texts, though they differ in details, declare that we are
    strangers, aliens, sparks of Light or Spirit trapped in evil matter. They
    recount the cosmic process whereby the circles of the world have been
    created, by ignorant or evil creators and not by the Light, and whereby
    we have become entrapped in the midmost or deepest dungeon. Finally
    they impart the knowledge needed to escape back to the one Light
    whence we have come and which is our real home.

    This is the pattern of thought that Hegel took over. But, rejecting all
    other-worldliness, he sought to reconcile men to this world, of nature
    and society, from which they had become estranged. We are the vehicles
    of a self-creating Geist which, in order to become and to know
    itself, has gone out into what is most alien to itself—the merely physical
    world of Newtonian science—and is progressively coming thence to its
    full self-realization and self-knowledge in and through human life and
    history. With this knowledge, given by Hegel’s own philosophy, man’s
    alienation from the world is in principle, overcome although Geist has
    not yet fully realized itself in the world.

    Marx took from Hegel two basic themes of Gnosticism, which Hegel
    had secularized, and re-interpreted them in his own way: viz. the
    cosmic drama of a fall into alienation from nature and one’s fellow men,
    and the saving knowledge, Marxism, which explains this and the way
    out of alienation back to an unalienated existence. But in one central
    respect Marx did not fully learn the lesson that Hegel had to teach him
    about modifying ancient Gnosticism.

    The Gnostic texts state that we are sparks of Light or fragments of
    Spirit (pneuma), and imply that we are distinct from each other and
    from the Light or Spirit only because of our fall or seduction into the
    circles of the world. As we fell through each circle, we were clothed
    with an outer covering. The return to the Light will be a reversal of that
    process, so that, as we pass back through each circle we shall strip off
    each coating. Consequently, but this is never stated, as far as I know, at
    the end of that process each spark or fragment will cease to be distinct
    and will merge back into the One Light or Spirit. Hence the End will be
    the same as the Beginning.”

    From Flew, Marx and Gnosticism, by R.T. Allen,
    Philosophy Vol 68, No 263, (Jan, 1993),
    pp. 94-98
    The full article is available on Jstore and others behind a paywall.

    (“Flew” is Antony Flew, 1923-2010, a British philosopher)

    see also:

    Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist by Murray N. Rothbard

    Early Secular Communism by Murray N. Rothbard

  6. 23 May 2015 @ 10:46 10:46

    I highly recommend the “Restless Heart of Darkness” series at, an excellent summary of the historical path that led us here.

  7. 23 May 2015 @ 10:48 10:48

    The media is using hypotheticals for the sole purpose of deflecting criticism of Hillary Clinton, about Benghazi and so many other atrocities.


  1. Mika Brzezinski Shocked ABC Hired Someone with Democratic Ties… | Regular Right Guy
  2. Ramadi Falls To ISIS | Batshit Crazy News
  3. Da Tech Guy Blog » Blog Archive » Daily Uncomfortable Truths 5-19-2015

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: