Longevity of the revitalization movement

Anthony Wallace wrote in his famous essay almost 60 years ago:

That regularity of patterned behavior which we call culture depends relatively more on the ability of constituent units autonomously to perceive the system of which they are a part… It is therefore functionally necessary for every person in society to maintain a mental image of the society and its culture…

Whenever an individual who is under chronic, physiologically measurable stress, receives repeated information which indicates that his mazeway does not lead to action which reduces the level of stress, he must choose between maintaining his present mazeway and tolerating the stress, or changing the mazeway in an attempt to reduce the stress.

The main contention is that most cultures were built to withstand certain level of “pressure”, either an outbreak of epidemic, an unassailable foreign invasion, or a heated irreconcilable internal societal strife. While most of the time cultures are able to maintain the homeostasis through digesting waves of “stress” and evolve gradually, a total breakaway from the old culture is not rare in the history of mankind. Wallace called this social phenomenon The Revitalization Movement, wherein new cultures (either newly created ones, existing minor ones, or existing foreign ones) are embraced by the populace over the old ones, in response to the out-of-range societal “stress”.

He was talking about how culture/religion responds to unexpected societal crises, with the claim that all religions arise in response to the crisis, from the origin of Judaism and Christianity in Levant, the Reformation in Western Christendoms, to the rise of Taiping Rebellion in late Qing China. This is where things get interesting. Within a first glimpse, his view seem a bit extreme. But to think further in his thesis, it starts to make a lot of sense. The introduction of monotheistic Judaism with the replacement of Aramaic-influenced Hebrew from Phoenician-related Paleo-Hebrew alphabet coincided when returned Israelites were puzzled why their holy temple was destroyed and their people subjugated into alien dominion. Christianity emerged as a formidable urban religion within the Roman Empire when people in the Roman cities were baffled by the devastation of the two deadly plagues in the 2nd and 3rd century. Reformation came into history after the infamous bubonic plague and years of harsh exploitation from the papal hierarchy. Taiping Rebellion erupted soon after the humiliating defeat of Qing to the British in the First Opium War. All of those changes of religions/cultures could be simplified as a change of belief. And in his assertion, all beliefs are blind, and all beliefs are constructed on some sort of “dream”.

One can ask whether a large proportion of religious phenomena have not originated in personality transformation dreams… The circumstances of whose origin have been distorted and forgotten, and whose connection with dream state is now ignored…It is tempting to suggest that myths and often, even legends, read like dreams because they were dreams when they were first told…

It is known that the spread of a religion/culture has little to do with individual enlightenment but rather its societal background and the influence of personal networking. In Wallace’s theory the emergence of dominant culture/religion only happened at those critical points when the old cultural structure can no longer relieve the exploding societal stress. According to this theory, all existing religions/cultures nowadays are the evidences of those old revitalization movements. This is such an eye-opening contention to me as I immediately try to apply it to interpret the rise of modern nationalism and more recently, the hegemony of leftism/liberalism in the contemporary world.

Modern leftism got everything it takes to be counted as a religion. It has a central belief exclusively consisting of emotional dreams like human rights, absolute democracy, freedom and egalitarianism. Those beliefs has been reinforced stronger than ever with the invention of mass media over the populace. One could even trace back the emergence of leftism in the era of Enlightenment as a revitalization movement in response to the decadence of social order and ethics with the rise of capitalism and industrial revolution in Western Europe.  This notion would further be propelled into a dominant position over its main competitor nationalism/patriotism that arise from the same societal stress, thanks to the two disastrous global wars and their final victory of both. However, when talking about modern leftism, I think “the inclusion of the savageland, and the escalating deterioration of the traditional societal structure in post-industrialism” deserves particular attention as the kind of societal stress that significantly facilitated the upgrade of modern leftism since the 20th century. The bafflement over the biological diversity, disparity of civilizations, the hollowness of modern lifestyle, serves as a major hit that struck modern leftism to forcibly (and painfully) evolve but have not yet mounted to a critical level to blow up the whole belief system.

In reality, the final blow to this old religion is on the way. The insurmountable pressure is accumulating from the discrepancy between reality and leftist dreams. The upcoming collapse of welfare economy, the foreseeable failure of multiculturalism, the growing frustration of the show business of democracy, and the increasing hostility against the equilibrium among corporate-bank-politician, would only grow bigger. This new window of opportunity will inspire various currently humble cults into the center of attention. Eventually there will be one that would supplant the old and prevail. We dissidents are the pioneers in this upcoming wave of revitalization movement. We appear, for the current religion can not handle the newly encountered stress fundamentally. Hopefully we would also be able to nurture and witness the arrival of the next revitalization movement.

Religious fundamentalist?

Not sure about who did the bombing in Olso yesterday (he suspected to be in charge of that as well), but it has been confirmed that the massacre in youth camp was done by this dude, Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old right-wing Christian fundamentalist (who expressed his right-wing thoughts from his facebook and comments on various blogs but nowhere near a Christian fundamentalist).

By the time I am writing this article the death toll has already risen up to 92 The death toll has risen up to 93 been confirmed to be 76, the highest death toll in a single day after WWII in Norway, not to mention that out of these 91 93 innocent lives most of them were poor young fellas in that camp.

What a tragedy! If confirmed that indeed this dude was behind all these savage barbarism, then he is no different than those Jihadists and violent leftist protesters either.

I usually consider myself a logicist, a pragmatist, and a eugenicist. I do share a lot of concern with the conservative rightist about Islam, illegal immigration, and failed attempt of multi-culturalism. However, there are always a lot of low-IQ and ignorant epsilon proles, who oversimplify the reality to mere love and hate, mostly hate,  appearing to be in the same block with the conservative right-wing . I am of course talking about those true racists, white nationalists, and jingoists. At the same time, though disagreeing with most of their arguments, I do recognize few of the good points made by the liberal and leftists, such as the idea of liberty and human rights, though they have been largely distorted by modern populists and abused by many who don’t deserve such nobility. But of course, there are way more widespread violent reactions to dissidence from the extreme leftist/liberals than extreme conservative rightists (see the graph).


I don’t think there’s much difference among extreme conservative rightists, violent liberal leftists, and those uncivilized barbaric who calls for jihad. They all tend to easily get influenced by simple opinions and start to build stark emotional attachment upon it. To them those philosophies, ideologies are simply RELIGION to them. After unconditionally and wholeheartedly taking those religious doctrines they see themselves as the ultimate defenders. So in the end of day they would not mind pouring every single profane word they know on you and viciously and ferociously attack you verbally and physically with full emotion as if they were fighting a holy war against infidels, if you somehow unfortunately project a different opinion or a simple unacceptable fact that they couldn’t handle rationally. A perfect example is the inexorably slandering comments by this fellow who thinks I am a disgusting chink who likes picking up others. Those breeds turn to assume that every other people are the same like them, highly emotional, religiously devout to a rigid ideology , and resenting dissidence wholeheartedly.

A picture is emerging of Norway attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik

However, having said that, conservative rightism do have the tendency to appeal more messed-up sociopath who misinterpret the ideology and dress himself as a medieval crusader to justify his anti-social behaviors. Such is the case with this horrible tragedy in Norway. So he is not happy with the labor party youth camp preaching around liberalism and leftism to those kids. Then why not start exerting your own influence? I doubt if he ever got the intelligence to start such work anyway  If he was largely driven by his anti-Islam sentiments, why didn’t he choose Mosques or Muslim community for his targets rather than Norwegian kids in a central-left political party camp? What on earth happened to him that made him commit such horrible terrorism is still a myth, given from all the internet traces (see comments below). The bottom line is: there’s no any reasonable justification for such mass killing anywhere. The only explanation I could speculate is that this dude somehow unleashed his antisocial darkness that blended with too much blindness and inhumanity. And only a devoted religious fundamentalists or a total sociopath could condone such disgrace (reminds me the lunatic who conducted the mass shooting in Tucson).

Let’s wait for a thorough investigation of who he is and why he was doing so in a few days.

May those innocent souls in this Norwegian tragedy rest in peace.

Updates for the ritual slaughter ban in Holland

In my previous block I have acclaimed the Dutch move of ritual slaughter ban targeting halal and kosher slaughtering as a brilliant move to use the dismay of one leftist group (animal rights group) as an excuse, or at least the most visible rationale to tame the growing trouble-making Islamic influence in the Netherlands.

I found this quite interesting and funny, especially the fact that Dutch legislation picks up animal rights, a common leftist ideology associated with affluence and excessive feminine sympathy , as a new sharp sword and shell to confront the most controversial social issue in Europe (that is… grrr. Immigration, Islam etc.). Though the Dutch move is not as sophisticated and convincing as it seems, it still counts as a big leap forward from simply denying the existence of those problems with wishful thinking of a peaceful neighborhood where gay couples neighbor a Wahhabi clan and say hi to each other with smile.

Gotta give credit to this action for that. However, there’s the follow-up of this ban which I found even more entertaining and amusing than the original story: the annoyance of the Jew in the Netherlands

What’s with the Jews? Well, the modern Europe is simply too intimidating to do anything that looks even slightly anti-Jewish (I avoid the term antisemitism, as their Muslims counterparts are the same breed – Semites, except for the Turks and Hausa). And there is really no reason to disdain the Jews in Holland anyway. Sure they may not believe in Jesus Christ and pretty much dominated the capitalistic financial world and help created ideology monsters like Communism and leftism, but they coexist pretty nicely with the other people nowadays and have produced loads of smart fellas that propel the voyage of modern human civilization. Looks like Jews are clean from European’s bash on Muslims, but why are they bitching about ritual slaughter ban?

Well, to answer this question, it is important to clarify that some Jews (though most of Jews in Europe and America got emancipated from strict religious belief) are still practicing their ancient rituals, which pretty much share a lot in common with their Muslim/Arab relatives. For example, Jews don’t eat pork, just like the Muslims. In this case Jews also perform a ancient ritual slaughtering called Kosher that is almost like the Jewish version of Halal in Islam, or the other way around (whatever makes you feel better). Evidently when the pretentious Dutch politicians were desperately looking for a way to curb the Muslims implosion in the country while still claiming to be much of a believer in universal equality and freedom that would attract enough votes to be popular, they could not single out the Muslims and deal with the issues publicly (though I think it would be much more effective to deal with the situation alone) due to their paradoxical “political morals”. Thus they have to bring down the whole clumps of “ritual slaughter” into the muddy water; and that act unfortunately also targets Kosher slaughtering as inhumane and banned as a result. This is basically how the Jews get spotted into the collateral damage (like the French ban on religious symbols at school, you think the French don’t like the cross-necklace wearing Catholic or Jews with Star of David?). So at the end of day, in this story, Jews get served, Kosher slaughter banned. Even though it is so obvious that Jews are not the target and Kosher is not Halal,their interests have to be sacrificed for the sake of aiming at Muslims. Even though Rabbis openly protest for the innocence of Kosher slaughtering, clarifying them not being the target but the Muslims (and they are absolutely correct), the hypocrisy of European politics matches on. Pity the Jews, just inconvenient timing when leftism deters any effective actions without hypocrisy and contingent  collateral damages. To me, it is such a relish to look at the contrasting stances and arguments of different claimants in this case.