There is a great deal to unpack, and it’s difficult to know where to start. But beginning at 21:42, where I happened to stumble into Sir Roger Scruton’s lead into the question “why we seek out the oppressor.” He conjectures that for some reason it seems that when we lose sight of the transcendental, we descend into this pit of wanting to reveal the oppressor. He frames this in the context of feminism and the patriarchal oppression of women by men.
Here’s how I see it. As I’ve mentioned before in this forum, there is no such thing as one-way (unilateral) oppression of one gender by another. I can summarize the main cognitive elements behind the feminist obsession with “patriarchal oppression” very easily:
- Hypergamy: Women only notice successful, powerful men (as per the “Pareto principle”, the upper 20%). All other men (the remaining 80%) are invisible to women. Do these successful men really oppress women? Or are they just more passionate and competitive in everything that they do, by virtue of their career-based priorities? Are the remaining 80% of men really oppressors? You know, the janitors, the tradesmen, the plodders, the earners, the soldiers that we send off to die in wars, the gender whose suicide rate is four times higher… are they really all oppressors? What is it about the remaining 80% of men that women don’t notice and don’t care about?
- Projection: Much of the feminist agenda can be understood from the perspective of projection. “This is what I would be thinking if I was doing what these successful men (the only men that I notice) are doing.” Hence feminist envy at those evil oppressors. Female bullies at heart know how male bullies act out. And male bullies are hot, baby. Hence the female attraction for exciting bad-boy stereotypes;
- Neo-Darwinism: My pet topic du jour. Our personalities do not come solely from the bottom-up, from the inside-out. They come from the top-down, from the outside-in… and I argue, this is the more influential flow of determinism. The outside-in begins under the influence of the primary nurturer, especially during the first 4 years of an infant’s rapidly developing neuroplastic brain. The top-down continues throughout life, with culture providing the options from which we choose. This is why I center on the importance of getting our paradigm right. The time to throw out neo-Darwinian, because-genes bullshit is long overdue.
These same basic elements can be extend to all the other dysfunctional things going on in culture:
- Hypergamy - pragmatism: Pragmatism is an extension of Peirce’s theory about how we define the things that matter. Where women only notice successful, powerful men, everyone else is doing much the same kind of thing. They are seeing the world from their own levels, from the perspective of their own priorities. They’ve lost the ability to empathize, to try and see the world from other perspectives;
- Projection - revealling the inner self: Again, more generally, “This is what I would be thinking if I was doing what Person X is doing.” Anti-white racists are still racists, because they are making assumptions about what I’m thinking, based on what they would be thinking if they were in my shoes. Bigots masquerading as anti-bigots are still bigots, because they have failed to liberate themselves from the original sin that is their culture. Virtue-signaling scolds are no different to their former incarnation as puritan, pitchfork-wielding fundamentalists;
- Neo-Darwinism - No, there is no such thing as an oppression gene. There is an oppression context, and mothers abusing their children begins a cycle of abuse that expresses itself throughout, and higher up, for example, men abusing women. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. Once again, this time with effect: there is no such thing as unilateral, one-way abuse of one gender by another. To suggest otherwise, as feminists are wont to do, is to disempower women, to enfeeble women, portray them as ineffectual imbeciles. They are not. Matriarchal authority is an authority to be reckoned with.
The bottom line, as I see it, is this. Our paradigm is broken. We don’t have a clue. We don’t see the extent to which we are products of our culture. We assume our culture to be “real”, but it’s all a collective hallucination. And all this is unravelling, expressing itself in the shifting politicizations, where once it was the Left against globalization, and now it’s the Right’s turn. They are shifting their stance based on their shifting priorities. When globalization was a corporate business agenda, the Left opposed it. When globalization became an authoritarian left agenda (as coporations aggregated and collectivised), the Right came to oppose it. None of this surprises me. Indeed, I expected it, and I expect it will get much worse. We can’t trust our leaders anymore. The Constitution? It doesn’t mean anything anymore. Our judiciary are joke, as are our other leaders. There’s no-one to respect anymore. This is Clown World, and everybody is a clown now.
So getting back to Scruton’s conjecture. Why is it that when we lose sight of the transcendental, we should descend to this oppression narrative? Answer… all of the above. 1) Seeing the world from our own level, from the perspective of personal priorities. 2) Projection, and the failure to see culture’s impact on our natures, the failure to empathize. 3) Neo-Darwinism, no our natures are not programmed into our genes, our natures are inextricably interconnected with culture. Do we see how leaning towards the Transcendental can ameliorate such impulses?
All terribly stream-of-consciousness… hope it’s not too rambling, it’s difficult nailing specifics on sweeping, big-picture topics like this, and it’s getting late in this part of the Eurozone