Author: askanceeyeminiblog

Re: the Revolt of the Masses

Circumstances in an organization to which I belong were such that my mind went back to the book The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset to help understand the situation. It is one of the most prescient books of the last century. In it, Ortega seeks to understand the cultural implications of the rise of what he calls “mass man.”

“Europe is suffering from the greatest crisis that can afflict peoples, nations, and civilization….It is called the rebellion of the masses. … This fact is the accession of the masses to complete social power.”

The ‘mass man’ “does not want to give reasons or be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the ‘reason of unreason.’” As he said elsewhere, “the vulgar proclaims and impose the rights of vulgarity, or vulgarity as a right.” The spirit of the masses “inevitably leads it to one single process of intervention [in social affairs]: direct action [i.e. violence,] … the Magna Carta of barbarism.”

What happens when mass man takes over the state? The mass “has a deadly hatred of all that is not itself. … When the mass acts on its own, it does so only in one way, for it has no other: it lynches.” Ortega goes on to say, the mass man “sees it [the State], admires it, knows that here it is, safeguarding his existence; but he is not conscious of the fact that it is a human creation invented by certain men and upheld by certain virtues and fundamental qualities which the men of yesterday had and which may vanish into air tomorrow.” Eventually, this lack of consciousness will strangle the state.

A similar process spells the end of science. And civilization dies.

Ah, the wonder of democracy as a philosophical ideal!

[Quotes from chapters 1, 8 and 13]

Opium for the Masses

One of the better known quotes (actually it’s a paraphrase) of Karl Marx is this statement about religion. “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” By it, he meant to castigate religion as a means used by the elites to pacify the masses, to make the ills of this world bearable.

A statement by Czeslaw Milosz, a Polish poet who lived under both the national and international forms of socialism, shows a much better understanding of the issue. “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders are not going to be judged.” (from a review of Milosz: A Biography in World magazine, 12/8/18 issue.)

Like almost everything Marx said, his statement was wrong. Religion, with its call for justice and an end to oppression and a hope for a better life, kindled a fire for freedom and justice in the hearts of man, not dreamy illusions. That cry for justice, fairness, the realization for God’s promises of peace and prosperity has been part of man’s yearnings since earliest times. So has the desire to see wrongs righted, to see violence and oppression recompensed. A hope and belief in the ultimate prevailing of justice is a necessary part of a healthy psyche.

It is the fondest dream of the blackguard that their betrayals, greed, and oppressive activities will go unpunished, that using others for their ends will be okay, that Nietzsche’s superman ethics are true, and death proves that truth. If death ends it all, then the antics of blackguards — from the political strong man to the dictatorial boss to those using others as their stepping stone — will, most likely, never be judged, never punished. What a solace for their souls! Now that’s a most powerful opiate!!

But as World concluded the article: “Real solace comes from believing in life after death, with a righteous and compassionate Judge.” Blackguards beware! Opiates generate illusions!

Christianity And Our Founding

I’ve recently finished reading several books that, broadly speaking, focus on the question of the relationship between Christianity and our nation‘s founding. For my own curiosity, I’ve decided to express my beliefs on the question. The three books I’ve read recently on this were: Defending the Declaration by Gary Amos, Reading the Bible With the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach, and Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? by John Fea.

Defending the Declaration was interesting in the way it traced the wording of individual phrases of the Declaration to a long history of Christian thought. The author’s conclusion? “The American Revolution … was ‘Christian’ in that all the principles included in the Declaration of Independence agreed with, and probably grew directly from, the Biblical teaching about revolution as formulated by major Catholic and Protestant theorists over a span of seven hundred years.” (p. 149)

Reading the Bible was interesting because it is one of the few books I’ve seen on this subject that is written by someone who appears to know the Bible. Many histories on this subject seem to overlook any reference or allusion that isn’t a direct quote. Many historians have noted the heavy influence of the Bible on 17^th & 18^th century American culture, but Dreisbach proves it. His conclusion: “From the Pilgrim fathers to the founding fathers and beyond, Americans have looked to the Bible for guidance in creating and administering a well-ordered political society. … [N]o source was better known or more authoritative and accessible in their culture than the Bible. Christianity in general and its Sacred Text in particular shaped many of the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions that informed their political thought and were vital to the construction and administration of their system of laws and civil government. ….[Also,] ideas derived from other sources were often evaluated in the light of Scripture, and the founding generation looked to the Bible to strengthen, validate, or sanctify ideas emanating from these other sources.” (p. 234)

But the most interesting book – because it is so infuriating – is John Fea’s book. The book purports to answer the question Was America founded as a Christian nation, but fails miserably. The first issue is that the terms are discussed, but never defined. Especially crucial is, what does Fea mean by a “Christian” nation? I cannot find a definition, which allows the author to denounce various actions and beliefs as not part of a Christian heritage. For example, he criticizes the colonists as not being theologically pure. But to what? To Calvinism, appears to be the answer at one point. But that means the Quakers in PA and the Church of England parishioners in VA both prove America was not Christian. Say what?

Fea also argues the documents of this era do not have Christianity embedded in them. These are political documents, and the Bible is sparse on details of the type and format of government God wants. When historians say a country is Christian, they mean things like what is the source of the ethical values underlying the laws, and what values are appealed to as the justification for the actions being taken.

Most of the evidence presented in this regard clearly shows that Christianity was the dominant world view of almost 100% of the leaders and people. This is done even when totally ignoring crucial issues such as the foundation of the Common Law (which formed the basis of all colonial law), the evidence of Christianity applied in people’s lives presented by commentators such as Alexis De Tocqueville, and the significance of the church service dedicating the nation to God performed on the first day of the new government in 1789.

Unfortunately, the author makes the mistake of “reading back” into history. Unfortunate though it may be, few Christians of that era understood that slavery and Christianity were incompatible. (Christianity and racism are also incompatible. Does that mean that no person who made a racist statement can be called a Christian? Obviously not.) Worse, the author appears to view history through Enlightenment eyes. Historians have tried mightily for a long time to prove that America was a product of the Enlightenment. To do so, they’ve associated ideas such as natural law and rights as Enlightenment ideas, ignoring the long line of Christian thinking, based on Paul’s writings, behind those concepts. Fea does not attempt to set the record straight.

So was America founded as a Christian nation (not a theocracy, but Christian), or was it a product of the Enlightenment? The answer is obvious to anyone who approaches the question in an open manner. When defined as above – as the ideal being sought, the source of the underlying values and justification for community/governmental actions – the answer to his question must be a resounding “yes.” That such an answer is not what the author likes, or is used by others in ways that cannot be justified, does not change the answer.

Parenthetically, it is both amusing and ironic that the author makes the claim he is both a “Christian and a Christian college history professor.” Fea is identified as a professor at Messiah College, a college that, at one time, was closely associated with the Brethren in Christ church. I know a little about Messiah. I would ask Fea in what way he defines “Christian” in this connection. My understanding is you will not find a monolithic doctrinal belief among either the faculty or the students. Nor do all practice the doctrines they speak. The driving focus of the school has long ceased to be religious in nature, and many documents coming out of the college scarcely mention God. Is he lying, or does his statement have validity? I think it does, but seeing that it does will illuminate the way America was founded as a Christian nation.

The Swiss Look in a New Direction

Every once in a while, a news article allows a glimmer of light to shine through. One such story a few days ago (sorry, I don’t have the url) discussed the Vollgeld Initiative in Switzerland. The initiative would eliminate fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is the policy that allows banks to ‘create’ money, by allowing them to loan out several dollars for each dollar of reserve (i.e. savings) they hold.

Fractional reserve banking is, thus, a major part of the impetus behind inflation. (Inflation is the expansion of the money supply, which causes evils such as the dilution of the purchasing power of each dollar and the initiation of the business cycle of ‘booms and bursts’ that has caused so much havoc during the last century.)

The news’ nickname for this was called the Sovereign Money initiative, so obviously – although it didn’t give specifics that I saw – the state would still exercise control over the money supply. While the state controls the money, evils such as inflation would only be mitigated, at best. But it seems like a step in the right direction.

I mention and discuss briefly the moral reasons for an end to fractional reserve banking, as well as to state control of a country’s financial system, in my book Walk In It, (still available from Amazon.) Every once in a while, ideas that are right philosophically and morally are proposed politically. When it happens, such ideas deserve our consideration and support.