Momtezuma Tuatara
23-02-09, 10:50 AM
The General Will is determined by Sermonic Language.
That's a title enough to put anyone off this post, but this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, because "ownership" is determined by thinking.
"Thinking" is an amorphous concept which means different things to different people.
All of these ludicrous media articles about how selfish parents are who don't vaccinate, and how critics of caesarians should button up, are characterised by one common thread.
Ignorance.
The outworking of ignorance, is that the ignorant person doesn't realise that they have assumed they have got it right, and because everyone else is as stupid as they are, that that means that the knowledge of the mass comes from the mass.
The medical profession is well aware of the power of stupidity, and harnesses it to the full.
So when people start "thinking" properly, and realise that the flat earthers in the 16th century were probably as enlightened as the prevaccine defenders like Adele Horin, they face two hurdles.
1) To establish exactly what their own convictions are based up, and ask themselves whether THAT knowledge is any more accurate that so much of the rubbish that the masses "believe"...
2) Not only do they then have to defend the rightness their own convictions, they then have to expose the wrongness of the "general will" of the masses.
Nowhere on the net have I see this more accurately discussed than this essay here (http://web.mac.com/rblaylock/Russell_Blaylock_M.D./Information/Entries/2007/8/18_Regimentation_in_Medicine_and_the_Death_of_Crea tivity.html):
Please READ the whole thing, because Dr Blaylock explains this brilliantly, so here are some quotes:
Teach him how to observe, give him plenty of facts to observe, and the lessons will come out of the facts themselves. … The whole art of medicine is in observation, as the old motto goes, but to educate the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the finger to feel takes time, and makes a beginning, to start man on the right path, is all that we can do. … Give him good methods and a proper point of view, and all other things will be added as his experience grows.
This is the antithesis of what is taught today. Because of the rise of scientism, that is science as a religious faith, medical students are taught to rely on their technology and “hard” science. To the modern physician, every statement must be supported by accepted double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, cross-over studies, ad nauseam. This is so deeply ingrained in our medical professionals, that they cannot bring themselves to believe what their experience demonstrates to them, often in shocking displays.
For example, I have advised a number of people on natural ways to treat their cancers. Most have been under the care of a “traditional” oncologist, usually receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation. In one case I remember very well, a patient was being treated at one of the quite famous cancer treatment centers and when she returned for her follow-up visit, her oncologist was quite surprised to see that not only was she feeling very well, but her metastatic tumors were shrinking significantly. He exclaimed to her that in his thirty years of practice he had never seen a tumor of her type respond so well.
The interesting part, is that when she told him what she was doing with her nutrition, he just shrugged and said-”I don’t want to know what you are doing, just keep doing it.” And this is one of the more positive responses. Most take on a look of shock as if they just sat on a tack and angrily tell the patient that they should stop immediately, because the antioxidants might interfere with their treatment.
Ludwig von Mises, in his book Bureaucracy, points out not only the stifling effect of regimentation generally, but focuses on the devastating effect on the human intellect, especially genius.
A creative genius is precisely a man who defies all schools and rules, who deviates from the traditional roads of routine and opens up new paths through land inaccessible before. A genius is always a teacher, and never a pupil; he is always self-made. He does not owe anything to the favor of those in power. But on the other hand, the government can bring about conditions which paralyze the efforts of a creative spirit and prevent him from rendering useful services to the community.”
We should not lose sight of the fact that while the elitist create the protocols, it is the bureaucrats who will enforce them. And as von Mises notes: “Their main concern is to comply with the rules and regulations, no matter whether they are reasonable or contrary to what is intended. The first virtue of an administrator is to abide by the codes and decrees.” In addition, we must appreciate that it is the physician who will become the bureaucrat, since under such a regimented system he becomes the enforcer. Also sacrificed on the alter of the collective is initiative, since regimentation discourage personal “displays of talents and gifts”.
Once the spirit of the truly creative physician is broken by the collectivist system, those remaining will become little more than apathetic workers making their way through the day, hoping they haven’t in some way offended the system. They become little more than pharmacists dispensing pills.
Frank S. Meyer points out in his book, In Defense of Freedom, the enormous danger of this process:
The empty abstractions whereby the General Will was identified neither with the particular will of individuals nor groups nor even the majority, but with an assumed underlying real will of the totality, enabled each elite in turn to fill out the lineaments of the totality whose will was holy, in such a manner that this will became what the elite wished it to be…The Volk of the Nazis, the proletariat of the Communist, are but manifestations of this totality whose will is the General Will, lay figures draped out to gain the consent of the masses. These figures are presented as if they were indeed the very image of the masses, but in reality they are only representations of the will of the elite.
History should help us understand that this encroachment on individual freedom is usually so insidious that most, in the course of their busy lives, rarely see it. It has also been noted that the easiest time to stop a despotic idea is in the beginning and not when it has become an accustom habit of new generations.
After you have read the whole post by Dr Blaylock, read the next document in the next post.
That's a title enough to put anyone off this post, but this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, because "ownership" is determined by thinking.
"Thinking" is an amorphous concept which means different things to different people.
All of these ludicrous media articles about how selfish parents are who don't vaccinate, and how critics of caesarians should button up, are characterised by one common thread.
Ignorance.
The outworking of ignorance, is that the ignorant person doesn't realise that they have assumed they have got it right, and because everyone else is as stupid as they are, that that means that the knowledge of the mass comes from the mass.
The medical profession is well aware of the power of stupidity, and harnesses it to the full.
So when people start "thinking" properly, and realise that the flat earthers in the 16th century were probably as enlightened as the prevaccine defenders like Adele Horin, they face two hurdles.
1) To establish exactly what their own convictions are based up, and ask themselves whether THAT knowledge is any more accurate that so much of the rubbish that the masses "believe"...
2) Not only do they then have to defend the rightness their own convictions, they then have to expose the wrongness of the "general will" of the masses.
Nowhere on the net have I see this more accurately discussed than this essay here (http://web.mac.com/rblaylock/Russell_Blaylock_M.D./Information/Entries/2007/8/18_Regimentation_in_Medicine_and_the_Death_of_Crea tivity.html):
Please READ the whole thing, because Dr Blaylock explains this brilliantly, so here are some quotes:
Teach him how to observe, give him plenty of facts to observe, and the lessons will come out of the facts themselves. … The whole art of medicine is in observation, as the old motto goes, but to educate the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the finger to feel takes time, and makes a beginning, to start man on the right path, is all that we can do. … Give him good methods and a proper point of view, and all other things will be added as his experience grows.
This is the antithesis of what is taught today. Because of the rise of scientism, that is science as a religious faith, medical students are taught to rely on their technology and “hard” science. To the modern physician, every statement must be supported by accepted double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized, cross-over studies, ad nauseam. This is so deeply ingrained in our medical professionals, that they cannot bring themselves to believe what their experience demonstrates to them, often in shocking displays.
For example, I have advised a number of people on natural ways to treat their cancers. Most have been under the care of a “traditional” oncologist, usually receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation. In one case I remember very well, a patient was being treated at one of the quite famous cancer treatment centers and when she returned for her follow-up visit, her oncologist was quite surprised to see that not only was she feeling very well, but her metastatic tumors were shrinking significantly. He exclaimed to her that in his thirty years of practice he had never seen a tumor of her type respond so well.
The interesting part, is that when she told him what she was doing with her nutrition, he just shrugged and said-”I don’t want to know what you are doing, just keep doing it.” And this is one of the more positive responses. Most take on a look of shock as if they just sat on a tack and angrily tell the patient that they should stop immediately, because the antioxidants might interfere with their treatment.
Ludwig von Mises, in his book Bureaucracy, points out not only the stifling effect of regimentation generally, but focuses on the devastating effect on the human intellect, especially genius.
A creative genius is precisely a man who defies all schools and rules, who deviates from the traditional roads of routine and opens up new paths through land inaccessible before. A genius is always a teacher, and never a pupil; he is always self-made. He does not owe anything to the favor of those in power. But on the other hand, the government can bring about conditions which paralyze the efforts of a creative spirit and prevent him from rendering useful services to the community.”
We should not lose sight of the fact that while the elitist create the protocols, it is the bureaucrats who will enforce them. And as von Mises notes: “Their main concern is to comply with the rules and regulations, no matter whether they are reasonable or contrary to what is intended. The first virtue of an administrator is to abide by the codes and decrees.” In addition, we must appreciate that it is the physician who will become the bureaucrat, since under such a regimented system he becomes the enforcer. Also sacrificed on the alter of the collective is initiative, since regimentation discourage personal “displays of talents and gifts”.
Once the spirit of the truly creative physician is broken by the collectivist system, those remaining will become little more than apathetic workers making their way through the day, hoping they haven’t in some way offended the system. They become little more than pharmacists dispensing pills.
Frank S. Meyer points out in his book, In Defense of Freedom, the enormous danger of this process:
The empty abstractions whereby the General Will was identified neither with the particular will of individuals nor groups nor even the majority, but with an assumed underlying real will of the totality, enabled each elite in turn to fill out the lineaments of the totality whose will was holy, in such a manner that this will became what the elite wished it to be…The Volk of the Nazis, the proletariat of the Communist, are but manifestations of this totality whose will is the General Will, lay figures draped out to gain the consent of the masses. These figures are presented as if they were indeed the very image of the masses, but in reality they are only representations of the will of the elite.
History should help us understand that this encroachment on individual freedom is usually so insidious that most, in the course of their busy lives, rarely see it. It has also been noted that the easiest time to stop a despotic idea is in the beginning and not when it has become an accustom habit of new generations.
After you have read the whole post by Dr Blaylock, read the next document in the next post.