Freedom Portal

Library => Conspiracy then and now. => Topic started by: EyeBelieve on March 04, 2013, 10:39:44 PM

Title: Guess Common Link: Writers, Klan, Jews, Masons, Satanists, Transcendentalists?
Post by: EyeBelieve on March 04, 2013, 10:39:44 PM
Answer:  the Nashville Agrarians!  IE the highly influential neo-feudalist neo-Confederate literary crowd.  Lengthy article for modern short attention spans (sorry) but interesting read describing many of the malign cultural influences in America:

SEDUCED FROM VICTORY:  How the Lost Corpse Subverts the American Intellectual Tradition (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2829_fugitives.html)

SEDUCED FROM VICTORY
How the Lost Corpse
Subverts the American
Intellectual Tradition
by Stanley Ezrol

[PDF version of this article]

    I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.

        —Benjamin Franklin, Sept. 17, 1787 (urging the unanimous endorsement of the draft Constitution of the United States)

    Men at sometime, are Masters of their Fates.
    The fault (deere Brutus) is not in our Starres,
    But in our Selves, that we are underlings.

        —Cassius to Brutus, from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Most of us know, or at least suspect, with good reason, that the nearly stillborn Bush II administration's bungling, yet brutal, attempt at "management" of the onrushing financial, economic, and strategic calamities of 2001, threatens to open this new century with even worse terror than that of the last, devastating, Century of War. The historical features of the last thirty-five years' "Southern Strategy," which imposed the Presidential "choice" between Al "Bore" Gore and "Boy George" Bush on the United States, are readily available,[1] and yet it remains for us, in this report, to explain why we allowed matters to come to this state of affairs. We must discover how we must develop the immunity to any future such pestilence. Just as many millions of us have been eager to gobble down the deadly, but imperceptible E. coli bacteria provided, at no extra cost, with our name-brand hamburgers, we have accepted an organized array of opinions regarding political-economic policy, philosophy, and theology, which are what Vladimir I. Vernadsky would call the "natural products" of an evil intention, an evil intention heretofore unknown to almost all of you, in its essential details.[2]

Our job in this report, is to focus the microscope on a particular variety of what President Franklin Roosevelt identified as the "American Tory" infection. We point to the avowedly "counter-revolutionary," Ku Klux Klan revivalist, pro-fascist, Confederate loyalists known as the Nashville Agrarians.

What you will discover is the extent to which well-known institutions and shapers of culture have, in fact, been, or been trained by, totally open, public, stubborn partisans of bloody treachery against the United States and its mission. These have included poets and novelists including Robert Penn Warren, historians including Ken Burns and Shelby Foote, political leaders including Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and educators including Cleanth Brooks and John Crowe Ransom, all among whom have been promoted as ostensibly benign, almost boring, "thinkers."

Through the microsopic inspection which we conduct in these pages, we will point out the characteristic features of the oligarchical system of ideas which our nation was founded to destroy, and the peculiar variety of this infection which is our main enemy today. Our intention is, that once this class of disease has been identified, you will come to understand how it has poisoned not only much of what you think, but, more important, the way many of you think. You will discover that this occurs, generally, through the mechanism of unconsciously accepted ideas about how the universe functions. These are mechanisms which control your opinion in spite of the popular delusion, that you must accept the opinions you swallow and repeat, because they, like your hamburgers, are made according to your habituated, acquired tastes.

The problem did not begin with the Year 2000 Presidential campaign. To explain how it came to this, we must look back approximately two centuries, with some understanding of the two and a half-millennia which led up to that point.

Our Republic was founded out of the great conflict between two great principles. The first, the Renaissance idea of the Nation-State[3] dedicated to the Common Good, or the General Welfare. The second, the anti-Renaissance, Medieval, or Feudal idea of the Empire composed of feuding warlords, in constant conflict over their property titles to land and to those serfs or slaves who work it, as well as to financial accounts.

The English colonization of America had been launched by friends and followers of the great ecumenical "Tudor Renaissance" leaders, Thomas More, William Shakespeare, William Gilbert, and Thomas Harriott, who sought to preserve the idea of a Nation from that Venetian-manipulated religious sectarian warfare, which had dominated Europe from 1511 on, and was to continue until the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. The immediate impulse for the establishment of an independent nation here, came from the 1688 through 1714 drive to expel the influence of our own intellectual forebear, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, from England, and to establish England as the "Brutish" Empire enforcer, modelled on ancient Rome, for the world's capital of financier power, Venice. This plunged Europe and its American colonies into a new Century of War, culminating in the unstable 1815 Congress of Vienna agreement between the Brutish, Habsburg,[4] and Russian Empires, which has been the basis for the bloody conflicts from 1848 to date.

Out of that conflict, Benjamin Franklin, in direct collaboration with Abraham Kästner, and with the circles of Moses Mendelssohn, Gotthold Lessing, and their allies amongst the champions of Leibniz's tradition throughout Europe, designed what became the United States, to be the cradle of the greatest advance in Civilization in the history of humankind. It worked. The age of combustion-powered technology and electricity, fostered here through the American System policies typified by high-tariff protectionism, technology-vectored internal improvements, and quality public education, has made possible a 150-year explosion of population and living standards, as well as the extension of our reach beyond our home planet Earth.

As you read about how the United States was seduced away from its tradition, apparently by a fairly small, multi-generational clique of traitors, fix in your mind, the image of the learned and proper Professor Rath of the 1930 German film, The Blue Angel, who taught his students from Shakespeare's Hamlet, but only so they could learn to pronounce "the English `th';" who was tempted, outwitted, and degraded to a miserable vaudeville "geek" by his own infatuation with the burlesque tramp, "Lola," portrayed by Marlene Dietrich. Which of the two, Lola or the Professor, was responsible for the calamity?
I. The American Tories and How They Grew

We start with the ideas that forced England's American Colonies to separate forever from the London regime. The Earl of Shaftesbury's 1688, so-called "Glorious Revolution," which placed the Dutch House of Orange on the English throne and launched the 25-year campaign to establish the "Brutish" Empire, included a plan to eliminate the American colonies' status as self-governing "Commonwealths."[5] Shaftesbury's "idea man" in this assault, was his philosopher of law, John Locke, who you were probably taught was a mentor of our own Founders. But, he wasn't. He was one of the creators of the British disaster, culminating in the coronation of the first George I, that made our revolution necessary. Locke's theories of political economy were promoted along with degenerate loon Sir Isaac Newton's mathematics, to replace the philosophy of our real forefather, Leibniz.[6]

By contrast with Leibniz's idea of "Happiness" in the joy of Creation, Locke's theory of government, expounded in his Two Treatises of Government, starts with the lie, that there was a predator versus predator "State of Nature" in which all men are servants and property-slaves; and, that this is the work of God, "made to last during His, not one another's pleasure." In this State, Locke claimed, any man has the right to forcibly seize back property taken by another, or kill a murderer, "as a lion or tiger," or even a thief who seizes property by force. Anyone whom one has the right to kill, Locke reasons further—in accord with the logic of the Roman assassin, Cassius, portrayed in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar—one has the right to enslave, "For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master to draw on himself the death he desires."

From the State of Nature, Locke derives his own "God," now worshipped by those Yahoos who have arrayed themselves behind President George W. Bush. Locke's god is "Property," sometimes known as "shareholder value." "Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property," he explained. Of course, neither John Locke, nor Boy George and his Yahoos, ever found anything in a state of Nature, and certainly never produced any "labour," but, if you ask them to give back anything they claim as "Property" you'll likely find one of these "wild savage beasts" Locke says you can kill if he gets in your way, baring his fangs in front of you. Since, as you will realize upon considering how things that might be claimed as "property" are actually produced, Locke's theory means nothing, what the Lockeans really believe, and, as we will see, claim as a direct gift from God, is that anything they say is theirs, is; and that they can kill anyone they want to, to keep it—as Bush's family and friends are now doing with their price-gouging takeover of our public energy utilities, their theft of our formerly public health care system, and their "little wars" against nations struggling for sovereignty.

Locke's fable was used to justify the hideous system of absolute property rights in African slaves, removed "out of the State that Nature hath provided" through forcible relocation at the cost of millions who died in the kidnapping raids, the horrid trans-Atlantic shipments, and the other aspects of this removal from the State of Nature. Under Shaftesbury's patronage, Locke helped produce a draft for the Carolina Constitution, which established this principle of "law," which has been the most pernicious internal enemy of this Republic from that time until today.

These Yahoos, Locke then claims, conclude a contract, surrendering their rights of "equality, liberty, and executive power" to "government" for the "great and chief aim" of "preservation of their property." For Locke, as for "Boy George" Bush, who loves the Death Penalty, but just cares too much for "the people's money" to impose a "Death Tax," Property Rights are more important than Life:

    [N]either the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money, nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything and hang for the least disobedience.

Our Founding Fathers rejected Locke's government of, by, and for Property, when they struck the word "Property" from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence and replaced it with Leibniz's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Our own General Welfare principle, in opposition to Locke's, "If you grab it, God wanted you to have it," recognizes the right of all citizens to that which is necessary for the continued productive life of themselves and their progeny. Yet, like malaria, Locke's idea keeps coming back. It is his claimed right to human "Property" and the breaking of the alleged "compact" to defend it, which is the sole cause cited in South Carolina's 1860 Declaration of Secession, and hence, defending the Slavery idea of human worthlessness, and the system of political economy that required it, was ostensibly the sole cause of the founding of the Confederate States of America and its Civil War against our Republic.

Today, that "Critter Company" which backed Richard M. Nixon's 1966-68 "Southern Strategy," claims that the Confederate "States' Rights" principle is a defense against tyrannical "Big Government" theft of your property. The one right denied the States by the Confederate Constitution was the right to outlaw Property in Slaves. The difference today, is that you have become the mere property of those who hold you and this nation to that form of bondage known as "shareholder value."

Like his Property theory of government, Locke's companion fraudulent theory of knowledge, expounded in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was also an attack on Leibniz. Along with the whole genus of oligarchical philosophers, Locke denies that man can come to know Universal Physical Principles. All man is capable of, he claims, are "simple ideas" derived only from "sensation and reflection." Locke claims that complex ideas are no more than the repetition, comparison, and conjunction of simple ideas, and that, "it is not in the power of the most exalted wit or enlarged understanding, by any quickness or variety of thought, to invent or frame one new simple idea in the mind." Locke denies the evidence of all human history, that man actually expands his understanding of the intentions of the Creator and His Creatures. He claims that man is totally incapable "to fashion in his understanding one simple idea, not received by his senses from external objects, or by reflection from the operations of his own mind about them."

He further claims, "This is the reason why it is not possible for any one to imagine any other qualities in bodies, however constituted, whereby they can be taken notice of, besides sounds, tastes, smells, visible and tangible qualities." He then rejects the idea of Man created in God's Image, saying, "God has given us no innate ideas of himself; . . . he has stamped no original characters on our minds," and divides the universe into two distinct types, "cogitative" beings, which are revealed to the senses, and "incogitative" beings. Thus, he rejects the obvious: That our "sense perceptions" are internal to our own minds, and may be triggered by "outside" processes, but are, at best, like Plato's shadows on the wall of a cave, partial and indirect evidence of those processes. In reality, man can verify his understanding of the "intentions" of the Creator, which are in no way revealed through the senses, only by demonstrating, through experiment, that he can make the Universe obey his wishes. That capacity is the source of "happiness" which our Nation was founded to un-Locke.
And, So, Locke Begat Jonathan Edwards

Locke's views were not immediately embraced in America. Our tradition is that of Apostle John's view of Christ, whose last, repeated, request to his apostles, was, "Feed my sheep." We understand this, as did our father, Benjamin Franklin, who wrote, "I believe in one God, creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his providence. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children."[7] Throughout his life, Franklin bubbled over with excitement at the prospect of devising and exhibiting experiments to test his hypotheses about how God had constituted the universe, and devised plans to use electricity and steam, dig canals, organize fire brigades, postal services, universities, philosophical societies, and, finally, our own Great Republic, all for the improvement of man's mastery over nature.

To attack Franklin's idea here in North America, and solidify the institution of absolute property rights in slaves, which was not generally accepted until well into the Eighteenth Century, Locke's sickness was spread by the so-called "Christian" forerunners of President Boy George Bush's Yahoo supporters, like our own racist Attorney General John Ashcroft, who would prefer to feed the Lord's sheep to the lions.

In the time of Benjamin Franklin, the great advocate of Locke's bestial notion of man was Jonathan Edwards, John Locke's student and a contemporary admirer of Locke's Scottish protégé, David Hume. Edwards became the guru of New England's "Great Awakening," and later President of what we now know as Princeton University. His grandson was to be Alexander Hamilton's assassin, the Tory traitor and schismatic intriguer, Aaron Burr.[8] From that time to the present, the Jonathan Edwards version of the Lockean model, is the persisting characteristic of our republic's "American Tory" enemy, as we shall see, time and time again, in the course of this report. Our traitors have always disguised their appeal in the hand-me-down old clothes of the Locke-Edwards-Burr tradition: the idea that mindless greed, ignorant of the world beyond its own desires, rather than what the "American" poet John Keats called "branchèd thoughts, new grown with pleasant pain," paves the way to prosperity.

What Edwards sold here, under the Christian slogan "Born Again," was the cult of Oligarchy, of Mesopotamian despotism, of Rome, the Whore of Babylon, and its Venetian and British successors. His view is the same as that of the Roman Empire and its Persian and Babylonian precursors. It is the view of that ancient Rome which called its people, "populi," which means "predators." According to this oligarchical—or Romantic—cult, the history of humanity is one of constant warfare amongst predators. The Creator, and the joy of Man in participating in Creation, is nowhere to be found. Like Hollywood's Godzilla, Edwards' God is merely the biggest and baddest predator, and his men are mean little predators whose only hope for "salvation," to be "born again," is to outwit Godzilla.

Since Edison had not yet invented the motion picture, Edwards' method was to terrorize audiences, including children, poorly educated laborers and others, under the sweltering hot tents of the "Great Awakening." In his written "sermon," "God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men," Edwards explained that God, like Godzilla, may, at whim, with no concern for right or wrong, do as he pleases to anyone:

    God may save any of the children of men without prejudice to the honour of his majesty. God may deny salvation to any natural person without any injury to the honour of his righteousness. God may deny salvation to any unconverted person whatever without any prejudice to the honour of his goodness. God does actually exercise his sovereignty in men's salvation: In calling one people or nation and giving them the means of grace, and leaving others without them. In calling some to salvation, who have been very heinously wicked, and leaving others, who have been moral and religious persons.

He then goes on to claim that God has granted European Americans special privileges over Africans, Native Americans, and even Jews, whom God now has abandoned to the devil, and, by implication, to whatever evil designs men have for them as well:

    The savages, who live in the remote parts of this continent, and are under the grossest heathenish darkness, as well as the inhabitants of Africa, are naturally in exactly similar circumstances towards God with us in this land. They are no more alienated or estranged from God in their natures than we; and God has no more to charge them with. And yet what a vast difference has God made between us and them! In this he has exercised his sovereignty. He did this of old, when he chose but one people, to make them his covenant people, and to give them the means of grace, and left all others, and gave them over to heathenish darkness and the tyranny of the devil, to perish from generation to generation for many hundreds of years. God showed his sovereignty, when Christ came, in rejecting the Jews, and calling the Gentiles. God rejected that nation who were the children of Abraham according to the flesh, and had been his peculiar people for so many ages, and who alone possessed the one true God, and chose idolatrous heathen before them, and called them to be his people. When the Messiah came, who was born of their nation, and whom they so much expected, he rejected them.

In his most famous rant, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," he laid down the fear:

    We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down? Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell. It is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction. So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it . . . neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God. . . . He will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

Finally, Edwards concluded his pitch, no doubt with the huckstering tones of a modern day "One Time Only" department store sale advertisement:

    But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?. . . Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed.

The Battle To Revive Leibniz

The birth of the United States, in 1776, was the culmination of a trans-Atlantic battle for the revival of Leibniz against the Brutish Lockean loan-shark forces. The founding of this Republic was the cutting edge of a movement which also included the development of the great German Classical period in drama, poetry, music, mathematics, and physics. In France, its representatives were the scientific and military geniuses of the École Polytechnique, which helped build our own West Point, and Germany's Göttingen. In Britain itself, this movement sparked a post-Congress of Vienna insurgency including the pro-Franklin poets John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley and the anti-Newtonian circle of mathematicians led by Charles Babbage. The essential idea, and playful good humor, of this movement is captured in Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn," with its famous concluding "slogan" on Truth and Beauty.[9]

The Romantic opposition to this Renaissance, as it affected the United States, was led by Locke's successor David Hume, the Scottish mentor of the German Romantic, Immanuel Kant. In his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hume claims to prove that Truth is never Beauty, and Beauty is never Truth. Following the usual procedure of those who place their faith in mere deductive logic, he first claims that what he intends to "prove" by deduction is true: that there is a distinction between "reason" or "truth" on the one hand, and "sentiment" or "taste" on the other. "The harmony of verse, the tenderness of passion, the brilliancy of wit, must give immediate pleasure. No man reasons concerning another's beauty," he claims, without offering any reason why he should be trusted on this. He then endeavors to determine to which realm Morality belongs. He proposes to do this by applying the experimental method of Sir Francis Bacon, claiming—as if Benjamin Franklin, the greatest English-speaking figure of his century, did not exist—"Men are now cured of their passion for hypotheses and systems in natural philosophy, and will hearken to no arguments but those which are derived from experience. It is full time they should attempt a like reformation in all moral disquisitions; and reject every system of ethics, however subtle or ingenious, which is not founded on fact and observation."

Hume concludes that argument, by foreshadowing both the argument of his disciple Adam Smith (The Theory of the Moral Sentiments), and the Pragmatism of William James, claiming Morality is merely a matter of utility:

    Thus, the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that utility, which results to the public from their strict and regular observance. Reverse, in any considerable circumstance, the condition of men: Produce extreme abundance or extreme necessity: Implant in the human breast perfect moderation and humanity, or perfect rapaciousness and malice: By rendering justice totally useless, you thereby totally destroy its essence and suspend its obligation upon mankind.

Finally, he concludes, "morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary." In this, of course, he is in agreement with the Romantic Vox Populi, or the Twentieth-Century "Public Opinion," which LaRouche rightly calls, "Vox Pox."

Thus Locke, Edwards, Aaron Burr, and the influence of Hume typify a characteristic feature of that variety of Romantic pathology which the American Tory represents down to the present day.

We, in what is called the American Intellectual Tradition, are passionate about science and passionate about the welfare of our brethren and our posterity. For us, the love for Truth, for Beauty, for our fellow man, and for God are one and the same thing.

Our republic's enemies from within all agree, that there is a strict, uncrossable divide between ideas and "matter," between reason and emotion, and that one realm must not influence the other. Whether these American Tories claim to be devout Christians or otherwise religious, atheists, or Satanists (or any combination thereof), they all agree that God's ways, whether they claim to like them or not, are completely unknowable to man, and therefore indistinguishable from Satan's, or that of any other irrational Godzilla-like force. Man must obey only his own irrational will, or one which proves more powerful. Some fanatics may claim the most powerful Will is God, some make a case for Satan, some for Nature, but they tend to switch back and forth between these views, and be just as immoral whichever "side" they choose for the moment.

The Scottish school tended to downplay the Edwards-style "Godzilla" image, in favor of what Lyndon LaRouche has called the "Little Green Men" under the floorboards, who act invisibly toward the same effect. They all follow the tradition of that post-Elizabethan protégé of the Venetian "guru" Paolo Sarpi, Sir Francis Bacon, the corrupt prosecutor and embezzler who, most of us were taught, was the inventor of the modern scientific experimental method, despite his failure to have ever produced a valid experimental result. "Truth" is cut and dried, and totally divorced from morality. Genius may be good or evil, just like in the comic books. In his Novum Organum, Bacon went so far as to call the opposing Platonic and Christian view, "evil":

    The corruption of philosophy by the mixing of it up with superstition and theology, is of a much wider extent, and is most injurious to it both as a whole and in parts. For the human understanding is no less exposed to the impressions of fancy than to those of vulgar notions. The disputatious and sophistic school entraps the understanding, whilst the fanciful, bombastic, and, as it were, poetical school, rather flatters it. There is a clear example of this among the Greeks, expecially in Pythagoras, but it is more dangerous and refined in Plato and his school. This evil is found also in some branches of other systems of philosophy, where it introduces abstracted forms, final and first causes. Yet some of the moderns who have indulged this, follow [it] with such consummate inconsiderateness, that they have endeavored to build a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, the Book of Job, and other parts of Scripture . . . not only fantastical philosophy, but heretical religion spring from the absurd mixture of matters divine and human. It is therefore most wise soberly to render unto faith the things that are faith's.

What we have identified—Baconism, Romanticism, whatever you call it—is, in fact, Gnosticism. It is the same as the ancient Cult of the Oracle at Delphi which formed the basis of Spartan and later Roman culture; or the so-called "Mystery Religions," the Bogomil cult, or Rosicrucian Freemasonry. That is, man is incapable of knowing anything through his own powers of reason, but must depend on some mysterious authority, which is passed from generation to generation through a cult priesthood, to which "truth" is revealed through visions, signs, and so on, which only the priesthood may interpret for the rest of us. This is the religion of Oligarchism, of Mafias, of Inquisitions.

It is the religion of the Bible preacher who says you must believe every word of the Bible, but then sermonizes for an hour on the interpretation of the meaning of each word which Little Green Men have whispered in his ear. If you want to know something, you gotta get in with the people what know. You play your cards right and don't cross the wrong people, and we might just let you on the inside. You should recognize this, also, as the axiomatic view which underlies the "guru"-riddled cult of the "Information Society."

Bacon's identification of cognition as "evil" is the dirty secret of the Romantics. Despite all of their talk about "Liberty," they—including the Twentieth-Century "anti-Authoritarian Personality" crowd of the Frankfurt School irrationalists Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt—identify as the enemy they are dedicated to exterminate, the idea that truth in any form actually exists to be known. As for Bacon, for Adorno and Arendt, there is only arbitrary opinion.
The Traitor Cuts a Romantic Figure

This Romantic plague infested America, even during the Revolution. Edwards' grandson, Aaron Burr, founded the Bank of Manhattan in 1799, which has now developed into what we know as Chase Manhattan Bank. From that base, he was elected the second Vice President of the Republic, and, while serving in that office, assassinated the father of the American System of political-economy, the Alexander Hamilton who had acted to prevent the treasonous Burr from being chosen President by the Electoral College. There followed some period of disgrace surrounding the assassination of Hamilton and his own trial for Treason, in an intrigue involving the raising of private filibustering forces in the Southwest. Burr went on to found the New York Democratic Party. In this he collaborated with Jeremy Bentham, the chief Lieutenant of Britain's Lord Shelburne in the British attempt to re-group after the 1781 surrender at Yorktown.

The following quote of Burr's opinion from Bentham's The Principles of Morals and Legislation provides us insight into Bentham agent Burr's role as a Romantic opponent of Jefferson and of the American Revolution:

    The pursuit of happiness is a natural right. Here we have a sly allusion to our celebrated Declaration of Independence; a paper which our author examined once paragraph by paragraph, with an acuteness and vigour, which were never exceeded. Take one example—We declare that certain rights [!] are inalienable, among which [rights!] are life; liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! But if they are inalienable, how comes it that our legislators may deprive us of them? How can they exercise the right of confining us—of hindering our pursuit of happiness, of taking away our property, or of putting us to death, unless we give it to them? And how can we give them a right, which we ourselves have not? In other words, how are we to alienate what is inalienable? The pursuit of happiness is certainly a natural inclination; but can we call it a natural right? That depends upon the mode of pursuit. The assassin pursues his happiness by assassination. Has he the right to do so? If he has not, why declare it? What tendency in that declaration is there, to make men happier or wiser?. . .

    I shall finish with a general observation. The language of error is always obscure, feeble, and changeable. A great abundance of words only serves to hide the poverty and falsity of ideas. The more the terms are varied, the more easy it is to lead people astray. The language of truth is uniform and simple: the same ideas, the same terms. All these refer to pleasures and to pains. We avoid all that may hide or intercept that familiar notion. From such or such an act, results such or such an impression of pain or pleasure. Do not trust to me; trust to experience; and above all, to your own. Between two opposite modes of action, would you know to which the preference is due? Calculate the effects, in good and ill, and decide for that which promises the greatest amount of happiness.

Bentham promoted himself as being anti-Locke, by opposing Locke's hoax "Compact," but, as you see, he had a view of man as bad as Locke's, or, perhaps a worse: man as a mere calculating machine, totally devoid of any real cognitive ability. In this, he merely plagiarized the Venetian Giammaria Ortes, whose work, in addition to his essay "Calculation of the Pleasures and Pains of Human Life," had been the (not original) source for Adam Smith's anti-American theory of Economics, and Thomas Malthus' overpopulation theory. Again we see the characteristic of Romanticism: the terror of human cognition. Poke a rabid environmentalist, obsessed with population control, and you will discover their fear that human beings might actually solve the problems they claim are insoluble, thereby eliminating the excuse they've used to justify the state of stupefaction they've chosen to live in.
II. Emerson and the De-Flowering of New England

So, the enemies of Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin de-flowered New England. The battle lines were drawn. The union of Kant and Hume bore fruit in New England, in the soil made fertile by Jonathan Edwards' crap, in the person of Ralph Waldo Emerson and his so-called Transcendentalist School. Emerson grew up in the period of the "Hartford Convention," a group of wealthy war-time traitors to the U.S.A., which threatened to bring about New England's 1814 secession from the young United States. Emerson, like Kant, was an admirer of the Swedish Newtonian scientist turned mystic cult founder, Emanuel Swedenborg. This queer fellow, Emerson, became the paradigm for the American Tory enemy of real cognitive work, whose Twentieth Century Nashville Agrarian and Bohemian varieties will become our main subject. Like our Twentieth Century expatriate "poets," Emerson's affections were in Europe, primarily in England and Scotland, and his life was punctuated by pilgrimages to his spiritual masters in Britain and on the continent, typified by Thomas Carlyle; Jeremy Bentham's protégé and editor, John Stuart Mill; and the apostle of the anti-Renaissance "pre-Raphaelite" movement, John Ruskin.

Emerson's mission, like that of today's Bush-league "Critter Company," was to mask Gnostic degeneracy with an American flavor. So, he promoted his infection as the coming age of "The American Scholar." In his 1837 address of that title to the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Phi Beta Kappa Society, he appealed to American Patriotism, announcing:

    Our day of dependence, our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands, draws to a close. The millions, that around us are rushing into life, cannot always be fed on the sere remains of foreign harvests. Events, actions arise, that must be sung, that will sing themselves. Who can doubt, that poetry will revive and lead in a new age, as the star in the constellation Harp, which now flames in our zenith, astronomers announce, shall one day be the pole-star for a thousand years?

This flourish, with its vague reference to real scientific discovery, is typical of Emerson, and, perhaps you will recognize the stock from which grew our more modern scientasters like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, or Carl Sagan. This sprinkling of his work with the artificial essence of science, was a way of weaning Americans away from the real article, as we knew it in Dr. Franklin. Though claiming to be the high priest of American Philosophy, Emerson bragged, as a student, "I can't multiply seven by twelve with security." In the "American Scholar," he said, "science is nothing but the finding of analogy, identity, in the most remote parts." The secret of Emerson's abiding appeal is plain old laziness of the brain. He uses the scent of scientific language to argue, in effect, that real work isn't necessary, we can chatter all we like because anything we feel is Truth, is:

    That great principle of Undulation in nature, that shows itself in the inspiring and expiring of the breath; in desire and satiety; in the ebb and flow of the sea; in day and night; in heat and cold; and as yet more deeply ingrained in every atom and every fluid, is known to us under the name of Polarity, these "fits of easy transmission and reflection," as Newton called them, are the law of nature because they are the law of spirit. The soul knows only the soul; the web of events is the flowing robe in which she is clothed. After its own law and not by arithmetic is the rate of its progress to be computed. The soul's advances are not made by gradation, such as can be represented by motion in a straight line; but rather by ascension of state, such as can be represented by metamorphosis,—from the egg to the worm, from the worm to the fly. The growths of genius are of a certain total character, that does not advance the elect individual first over John, then Adam, then Richard, and give to each the pain of discovered inferiority, but by every throe of growth the man expands there where he works, passing, at each pulsation, classes, populations, of men. With each divine impulse the mind rends the thin rinds of the visible and finite, and comes out into eternity, and inspires and expires its air. It converses with truths that have always been spoken in the world, and becomes conscious of a closer sympathy with Zeno and Arrian, than with persons in the house.

In this he apes the Leibnizian scientific method, from Nicholas of Cusa's work on the quadrature of the circle, through Leibniz, Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann, who rigorously developed a geometrical method based on the lawful process of generation of successions of incommensurable "geometries." Contradicting his own claims about the inadequacies of arithmetic measure, Emerson has learned and taught precisely zero about how Nature really works. The real scientists know that nature follows no single precise arithmetic law, but they can multiply seven by twelve. In fact, before the development of electronic computers, Kepler, Gauss, and others were notorious for their painstaking arithmetic calculations, and precise physical measurements, to produce the real science which they have bequeathed to us.[10]

Four years after his "American Scholar" address, Emerson promoted his cult of "I know what I know," hostility to real cognitive work, in "The Over-Soul":

    We know truth when we see it, let skeptic and scoffer say what they choose. Foolish people ask you, when you have spoken what they do not wish to hear, "How do you know it is truth, and not an error of your own?" We know truth when we see it, from opinion, as we know when we are awake that we are awake. It was a grand sentence of Emanuel Swedenborg, which would alone indicate the greatness of that man's perception,—"It is no proof of a man's understanding to be able to confirm whatever he pleases; but to be able to discern that what is true is true, and that what is false is false, this is the mark and character of intelligence."

He then, like our modern Hollywood ding-bat spiritualists, attempts to paint this cult of stupidity with the aura of "Revelation":

    We distinguish the announcements of the soul, its manifestations of its own nature, by the term Revelation. These are always attended by the emotion of the sublime. For this communication is an influx of the Divine mind into our mind. It is an ebb of the individual rivulet before the flowing surges of the sea of life. Every distinct apprehension of this central commandment agitates men with awe and delight. A thrill passes through all men at the reception of new truth, or at the performance of a great action, which comes out of the heart of nature. In these communications, the power to see is not separated from the will to do, but the insight proceeds from obedience, and the obedience proceeds from a joyful perception.

Emerson doesn't write about splattering your blood, the way Jonathan Edwards did, but he's just as dangerous for your mind. He proceeds to anticipate the ideas later presented by his famous protégé, William James, in his Varieties of Religious Experience. Emerson wrote as follows:

    A certain tendency to insanity has always attended the opening of the religious sense in men, as if they had been "blasted with excess of light." The trances of Socrates, the "union" of Plotinus, the vision of Porphyry, the conversion of Paul, the aurora of Behmen, the convulsions of George Fox and his Quakers, the illumination of Swedenborg, are of this kind. What was in the case of these remarkable persons a ravishment has, in innumerable instances in common life, been exhibited in less striking manner. Everywhere the history of religion betrays a tendency to enthusiasm. The rapture of the Moravian and Quietist; the opening of the internal sense of the Word, in the language of the New Jerusalem Church; the "revival" of the Calvinistic churches; the experiences of the Methodists, are varying forms of that shudder of awe and delight with which the individual soul always mingles with the universal soul.

Is it surprising that this New England abolitionist, Emerson, called his longtime correspondent, "Prince" Achille Murat, the spawn of Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Metternich deployed to Florida after Napoleon's defeat to agitate for what was to become the Confederacy, "an ardent lover of truth, a type of heroic manners and sweet-tempered ability?" He praised the anti-slavery terrorist, John Brown, in almost the same way.

While patriotic Americans—John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Henry Carey, and Abraham Lincoln—fought for Franklin-style "internal improvements," tariff protection for domestic industrial development, and the withering away of the horrid slave system, the Confederacy bubbled up out of our Southern cauldron, fuelled by an alliance between Emerson's New England and the lords of Dixieland. The latter was an alliance in the slave, sugar, and opium trades. Emerson and his circle laid the groundwork for the rot that would virtually disarm the United States morally, as well as militarily, and that would open the fortress gates to the post-Civil War, romantic's cultural revival of the notion of the Confederacy as a Lost Cause.

The Transcendentalist periodicals, The Dial, The Atlantic Monthly, and Harpers, allied with the British Blackwood to spread Emerson's fake American cult of hostility to cognition. This is what Franklin's admirers John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley fought against, in England and from exile in Italy, and what Edgar Allan Poe fought against through the Southern Literary Messenger and other venues, here in the United States. No American's education is complete unless he understands this war against the Transcendentalist Romantics through, amongst other things, reading Poe's stories: such as, "The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.," "How to Write a Blackwood Article," "A Predicament," "X-ing a Paragrab," "Never Bet the Devil Your Head," "Eureka," or "Mellonta Tauta"; or his famous plea to Nathaniel Hawthorne, whom he praised as the most talented of the Transcendentalists in his review of Hawthorne's Twice Told Tales, to leave "The Old Manse" (the Emerson family seat) and start writing with "visible ink."

And so, it came to War, beginning really, not in 1861, but with "Bleeding Kansas" in the 1850s. Despite Lincoln's heroic efforts to, somehow, maneuver a peace between enemies smoldering with blood fever, he took the oath of office and assumed the Presidency of a nation already, in reality, at War. Although Emerson, too old to be expected to serve in the military, remained a vocal supporter of the Union, his disciples leaned toward the views of Aaron Burr's anti-War Democrats, as typified by General George McClellan, who, after Lincoln cashiered him for his refusal to lead a serious threat to the Confederacy, confirmed Lincoln's judgment by running for President against Lincoln as a Democrat on a platform of surrender to the inferior Confederate forces. A sampling of Emerson's youthful protégés gives an idea of the Transcendentalist contribution to the cause.

The Swedenborgian William James—who went on to found the Harvard University Psychology department, and its tradition as a dispensary of psychotropic drugs, and the philosophy he called "Pragmatism"—failed to enlist.

James' lifelong friend, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.—who went on to be appointed to the Supreme Court by Theodore Roosevelt—enlisted, but resigned his commission in support of McClellan's 1864 surrender campaign, explaining to his father, the famous Poetaster, who excelled his son in patriotism, that he thought Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had "politicized" the war, thus relieving him of any responsibility to fight further. In the Twentieth Century, he served as a sort of "uncle" to some of H.G. Wells' New Republic collaborators.

The Swedenborgian William Dean Howells, was named by the Transcendentalist clique at the outset of the War to inherit the editorship of The Atlantic, from which position he was to serve as the patron of two generations of writers. They, therefore, arranged to have him appointed Assistant Consul to Venice to avoid danger.
The Lost Cause: The Dead That Walk and Talk

After the military defeat of the Confederacy, the battlefront shifted to financial and cultural warfare. The alliance among New England and New York financial interests and Southern drug-running and slave-trading interests, promoted a pro-Confederate counteroffensive, which has been more dangerous than the shooting war itself.

Within days of the close of the War, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Despite this, the program of "internal improvements," notably railroad building and the development of the Agricultural and Mining schools, launched by Lincoln and his economic adviser, the world's greatest economist of that time, Henry C. Carey, continued. As a result, by the time of the famous 1876 Exposition, the United States was clearly the dominant industrial, and economic force in the world, and had developed the base from which much of the world would be "electrified" in the course of the succeeding half-century. In the same period, an American current of Classical musical composition, based on the "Negro" Spiritual, was fostered here, by the work of such artists as the Fisk Jubilee Singers, and the later help of Antonin Dvorák.

The American Tory opposition to these developments was fierce. The events of the next thirty-six years, including the assassination of Republican President James Garfield in 1881, and ending with the assassination of Republican President William McKinley in 1901, delivered the White House to a pro-Confederate, Wall Street, British Empire fanatic, Theodore Roosevelt. This had its effect, much as has the recent period since the assassination of President Kennedy, through the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and other Civil Rights leaders. Then, two generations of War, and the assassination of three Presidents in 36 years, left many Americans vulnerable to the idea that not the hard, but joyful work of discovery, but rather, the raw, unthinking lust for wealth and power, was the surest means of Progress.

Increasingly, the American System of Economics, based on Leibniz and Franklin, was replaced, even within the slain Lincoln's Republican Party, with the Lockean ideas of "Property," rapacious profiteering, or today's "shareholder values." This, like the replacement of Leibnizian science with empiricist claptrap, was done under the authority of Herbert Spencer's and Charles Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" hoax. Emerson's "Kindergarten" was instrumental in the cultural degradation which opened the door for Roosevelt's coup, and they played a prominent role in his Junta and its aftermath. Theodore Roosevelt himself, was one of William James' psychology students. John Hay, one of the Transcendentalist-backed "western" writers, who shared a Washington residence with James' intimate, Henry Adams, was Roosevelt's Secretary of State, and in 1902, James' lifelong friend, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was appointed by Roosevelt to the Supreme Court.

Now, focus on the cultural aspects of this post-Civil War campaign for the Lost Cause.

In Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, Confederate Generals and Scottish Rite Freemasons, Albert Pike and Nathan Bedford Forrest, along with other "Templars of Tennessee," founded the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan's founders and defenders describe it as a secret fraternal organization, modelled on ancient cult practices, intended simply as a way for idled former Confederate soldiers to amuse themselves, which developed into a force of vigilantes, or "regulators" dedicated to terrorizing freed slaves who didn't know their place, and any whites who might defend them. Their costumes, symbols, ranks, and precepts were an infantile mimicry of an ancient mystical warrior cult. This wonder of imbecility, with its Grand Dragons, Wizards, Giants, Cyclops, Magi, Monk, Exchequer, Turk, Scribe, Sentinel, Ensign, Centaurs, Yahoos, and Ghouls, who organized themselves to lord it over the Realms and Dominions comprising the Invisible Empire, became a major terrorist force throughout the nation.[11] The incongruity between the Klan's own self-description and their bloody work, reminds one of Shakespeare's Hamlet's famous quip, "No, no, they do but jest, poison in jest; no offence i' the world."

Founder Albert Pike was the Sovereign Grand Commander, and intellectual—as well as gastronomical—giant of the Scottish Rite order. He became the principal author of the Scottish Rite "Bible," Morals and Dogma,[12] and is now honored with a bust and crypt in the nether regions of the order's Mother Temple in Washington, D.C., as well as a prominent statue provided for by an Act of the United States Congress, in the Capital's Judiciary Square. Pike identified Masonry's roots in the same occult traditions (Rosicrucianism, Zoroastrism, Theosophy) as Emerson's Swedenborgianism. The fundamental idea being that there are no knowable ideas, only mysteries which some people have been given the key to and others haven't. God likes some and doesn't like others, and that's all there is to it, and we know who we are, and we know who you are.

In this climate of terror against Lincoln's legacy, Emerson's "Kindergarten" rose to dominate cultural life in America. His literary disciples, led by William Dean Howells, who returned from Venice once the war was safely over, promoted sectional literature, and the literature of soap opera-like personal feelings. Industrial and economic progress were often portrayed in this literature, to appeal to American taste, but with the heart and brain removed. Ambition, lust, and greed, rather than passion for Truth and Beauty, were what made the world go round. The paradigm of this movement was the Transcendentalists' Country and Western "superstar," Mark Twain.[13] Meanwhile, the immensely wealthy, lazy, and virtually unemployable Swedenborgian draft dodger, William James, launched an attack on the very idea of Truth through his promotion of what many today believe is the American Intellectual (or anti-Intellectual) Tradition, the philosophy he called "Pragmatism."

James, like his mentor Emerson, was an intimate of the British political and cultural elite. After the assassination of Lincoln, accomplished by Confederate spies with connections to the British and the Habsburgs, Emerson's circle set out to do what Lincoln had declared couldn't be done, namely, to "fool all of the people all of the time." James became an unofficial member of the British elite "Cambridge Apostles," participating in groups including the "Scratch 8," and the "Metaphysical Society," led by the Apostles.

Personally, James and his lifelong "soulmate," Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., were directed by Sir Frederick Pollock, a leader of British Freemasonry, who, during the First World War, was to head the Royal Colonial Institute Lodge, with special responsibility for maintaining Masonic influence in the colonies—including the United States. Pollock owed his title to his Grandfather, who had sat as a judge, who violated British neutrality during the Civil War by ordering the release of the British-built warship, the Alabama, to the Confederate Navy.

As the founding head of Harvard's Psychology Department, James became the father of American psychology, and also, in concert with John Dewey and others, one of the molders of Twentieth-Century American educational policy. The period in which he came to dominate American psychology and philosophy, was the period in which, with the assassination of McKinley, the Lincoln current in the Republican Party was murdered and replaced with the British Empire chauvinism of Theodore Roosevelt. With such a precedent, no one has a right to be surprised by the more recent case of Harvard LSD guru, Dr. Timothy Leary. For James, Emerson's mere talk against cognition wasn't adequate; he used drugs and promoted a cult of drug-induced insanity to chemically castrate the brain. I quote from his most famous work, based on lectures delivered in Edinburgh, Scotland, The Varieties of Religious Experience:

    Borderland insanity, crankiness, insane temperament, loss of mental balance, psychopathic degeneration (to use a few of the many synonyms by which it has been called), has certain peculiarities and liabilities which, when combined with a superior quality of intellect in an individual, make it more probable that he will make his mark and affect his age, than if his temperament were less neurotic. . . .

He then offers his prescription:

    The next step into mystical states carries us into a realm that public opinion and ethical philosophy have long since branded as pathological, though private practice and certain lyric strains of poetry seem still to bear witness to its ideality. I refer to the consciousness produced by intoxicants and anaesthetics, especially by alcohol. The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour. Sobriety diminishes, discriminates, and says no; drunkenness expands, unites, and says yes. It is in fact the great exciter of the Yes function in man. It brings its votary from the chill periphery of things to the radiant core. It makes him for the moment one with truth. Not through mere perversity do men run after it. To the poor and the unlettered it stands in the place of symphony concerts and of literature; and it is part of the deeper mystery and tragedy of life that whiffs and gleams of something that we immediately recognize as excellent should be vouchsafed to so many of us only in the fleeting earlier phases of what in its totality is so degrading a poisoning. The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness, and our total opinion of it must find its place in our opinion of that larger whole.

    Nitrous oxide and ether, especially nitrous oxide, when sufficiently diluted with air, stimulate the mystical consciousness in an extraordinary degree. Depth beyond depth of truth seems revealed to the inhaler. This truth fades out, however, or escapes, at the moment of coming to; and if any words remain over in which it seemed to clothe itself, they prove to be the veriest nonsense. Nevertheless, the sense of a profound meaning having been there persists; and I know more than one person who is persuaded that in the nitrous oxide trance we have a genuine metaphysical revelation.

    Some years ago I myself made some observations on this aspect of nitrous oxide intoxication. . . .

Some years later, James published Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, dedicated to Emerson's friend and Jeremy Bentham's editor, John Stuart Mill, in which Harvard dope-freak William James smeared Leibniz, without mustering an argument, saying, "Leibniz's feeble grasp at reality is too obvious to need comment from me." Those of you who think that "Pragmatic" means practical, hard-headed, getting the job done, American, or something like that, remember, it is the philosophy not of a man, but of his dope:

    [T]he days are over when it could be said that for Science herself the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Our solar system, with its harmonies, is seen now as but one passing case of a certain sort of moving equilibrium in the heavens, realized by a local accident in an appalling wilderness of worlds where no life can exist. In a span of time which as a cosmic interval will count but as an hour, it will have ceased to be. The Darwinian notion of chance production, and subsequent destruction, speedy or deferred, applies to the largest as well as to the smallest facts.

    [W]e ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right. If you follow the pragmatic method. You must bring out of each word its practical cash-value. Theories become instruments, not answers. Against rationalism as a pretension and a method, pragmatism is fully aroused and militant.

    Now truth is always a go-between, a smoother-over of transitions. It marries old opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum of jolt, a maximum of continuity.

    The reason why we call things true is the reason why they are true, for `to be true' means only to perform this marriage-function.

    Old fashioned theism was bad enough, with its notion of God as an exalted monad . . . but, so long as it held strongly by the argument from design, it had kept some touch with concrete realities. Since, however, Darwinism has once for all displaced design from the minds of the `scientific,' theism has