Impervious

 

On Pages 78 and 79 of his book, The True Believer, Eric Hoffer asserts that the true believer’s readiness for self-sacrifice is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. This informs me about Hoffer’s outlook. First, he thinks human are fallen. Second, like me, I think he suspected, if he never actually stated that he thinks so, that selflessness is evil, and noble selfishness or enlightened self-interest is good, and he regards people as selfless more than self-centered. He and I suspect people are altruists not egoists psychologically. He (like I do) would regard the group or collective as evil more than good, and the individual or isolated human atom as good more than evil. We both would believe that individuals, though self-interested more than other-interested, are more selfless and generous than are joiners/groupists/collectivists who are other-interested more than self-interested. It is the joiners more than loners that are more selfish and stingy with power, money, praise, cooperation and love of life than are individualists, on average.

 

Since 1974, I sensed that Hoffer and I saw the world alike, and, now that I have devised an egoist ethic compatible with Mavellonialism, when I go back and reread Hoffer, his prose and its unstated presuppositions and what it logically entails, seem much clearer and more evident to me now than then. If Hoffer is read, as I am doing, through the lens of my moral system, then the intellectual wisdom and gifts which he shared with the world, are now most clearly understandable and translatable into plain English.

 

I always felt he was greater than acknowledged, but that he has been forgotten because people were not able to fully comprehend what he was saying to them. Now, through the lens of Mavellonialism and its form of rational egoism, his message should finally be deliverable.

 

His thinking and my own, and his morality and my own are replete and infused with paradoxes and true contradictions that seem to us to be the nature of humans and how the universe is laid out. We are moderates, and we think the individual or individuators is more rational, more moderate and more in love with and closer to grasping the true, the good, the beautiful, while the joiner or nonindividuator is more emotional—or passionate, depending the degree of his belonging—more immoderate or fanatical, and more in love with the lie, the sin, the false, the bad, the evil, the ugly (spiritually or morally but not physically ugly).

 

We both think people are happier and more at their best as individual-livers and individuators, than as group-livers that do not individuate.

 

Here is Hoffer (H after this): “                    Doctrine

 

                                                                        56

 

The readiness for self-sacrifice is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. He who is free to draw conclusions from his individual experience and observation is not usually hospitable to the idea of martyrdom. For self-sacrifice is an unreasonable act.”

 

My response: This section on Doctrine is where, in this book, he most openly matches my ethical system, and this is where he even shares some common ideas with the radical egoist Ayn Rand. She would agree with him wholeheartedly that the idea of martyrdom was inhospitable, and especially with his statement that self-sacrifice is an unreasonable act.

 

H: “It cannot be the end-product of a process of probing and deliberating. All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and there is no truth or certitude outside of it.”

 

My response: The false binary/ false dichotomy/the black/white thinking of a fanatic embedded in and following a mass movement is absolutist or totalistic, but that is an extreme lie, a delusion or illusory or false claim. These absolute or absolutist assertions emanate from the doctrines, stories and narratives shared internally and exported to the world, the explanatory rationales and answers given by the demagogue and guru to his faithful followers.

 

 These answers are ideologically coherent with the claims of the adherents to the holy cause, but they are lies and exaggeration, not connected to reality; they are subjective, relative, and fake, stemming from the fake holy cause, a counterfeit substitute religion of a pseudo-deity, the worshiped prophet or guru that constructed this castle of lies and justifications. The true believers believe these doctrinal assertions with complete certainty, because, inside, they know they are rubbish, illogical and silly and menacing.

 

The advocate of honest religion following a good deity, or an atheist with a secular cosmology describing the material reality, share beliefs that are modestly, calmly stated. Even if the believer, religious or secular, claims these propositions held are objectively true, certain, or absolutely representative of reality one a one-to-one correspondence, or if they like moderate I aim towards the objective and the absolute assertions to make, we hold that these beliefs are probably certain at best, because limited we can only offer partial truth or evidence to undergird our arguments.

 

Another worry for me is that if a true believer pushing any holy cause is willing to self-sacrifice for dying for his ism, then you had better anticipate that he will expect the same from all other humans, and his sheer ruthlessness will allow him to put you to death by the sword in his hand so that you sacrifice your life, you family, your nation, your property, all proceeds going to the benefit of his cherished cause. All must sacrifice and all will be tossed, by him, whether they accede or his tosses them in involuntarily or as corpses, tossed into the maw of this ever hungry, ever devouring ion rampaging across the earth.

H:  “The facts upon which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ. ‘So tenaciously should we cling to the word revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to either be seen or heard.”

 

My response: Hoffer is pointing out that the fanatics accept nothing that varies one whit from holy writ. He is implying that their intellectual certitude is a lie and a colossal, unchangeable mental error, and that he holding these zealots are not morally exemplary persons. Note too, right after that, that whoever he is quoting is a Christian fanatic, unmovable.

 

Does this mean Hoffer and by extension me, believe that Christians are evil, fanatical, wrong, and condemnable. It may be that the earlier Christians were so extreme because they did not feel that they were yest supreme, that they could not survive if they relented, or that they just were so extreme, and in many instances they were. Still, Christianity is a great, good noble faith about the great, good Jesus, but Christianity and the worship of Jesus, is to be conducted by cool minds and warm hearts of moderate, reasonable believers, non-zealots and I think that is what Jesus would want from his followers.

 

H: “To rely on evidence of the senses and reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for years  the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical Communist refuses to believe an unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes the cruel misery inside the Soviet promised land.”

 

My response: Hoffer is reminding us that truth is not a value that the fanatic cares about. A reasonable or moderate person might change or modify his beliefs if evidence and argument to the contrary shake his conviction in his own conclusions. Hoffer the genius zeroes in on the fact that blind faith is sustained by unshakeable, innumerable unbeliefs. Where the self is irremediably spoiled (A view that is perception before it becomes lived reality; recover remains possible for anyone, anywhere, anytime.), the true believer has fled from and wiped out the self by disappearing into the selected mass movement. From that point forward, her belief in and faith about the inerrant, infallible nature of the doctrines preached by the demagogue or guru spearheading that holy cause are held views grounded in supreme confidence as to their rightness and superiority, though objectively, such views are puerile, vile, incomplete, and subjective.

 

The beliefs held by the fanatic are evil doctrines, immoderate and irrational—based in feeling—more than sensible, modifiable good beliefs promoted by a wise individual, nuanced, reflective, rational if firmly but not totalistically held or stated for the world to receive.

 

Hoffer may say it later in his book directly—the deep. causal, intricate connection between groupism, evil and fanaticism, but I will declare here it in case he does not. Groupism, evil and fanaticism are organically affiliated and inter-relational. If we want to grow evil in the world, we do what demagogues and gurus do by promoting a mass movement to grow and spread a holy cause. This is achieved by upsetting the masses, so they become frustrated enough to abandon their established social structures and run headlong into the mass movement’s open arms.

 

 To grow evil is to found and construct mass movements, the active phase of the movement as a revolution or unleashed social upheaval. If it is victorious and overthrows a government, then its rulers set up a totalitarian government which is the settled, quiet permanent established mass movement.

 

Under both phases of mass movements, the ethical system is altruism-collectivism, and group identity is paramount for thereat beliefs are fanatical, absolute. Certainty is proclaimed if not objectively so.

 

By contrast, for those promoting individual identity and egoist-individualist morality, moral beliefs are relatively moderated, reasonable, sincerely and deeply held, but made be amenable to change or some modification if the arguer is persuasive or insightful.

 

Under mass movements group rights of one group vying with group rights and the rival ideologies can lead to rioting, protests, civil war, and international conflict. Any mass movement with its favoring group rights are cruel, evil systems of doctrinal disputes leading to endless, deadly power struggles and even armed conflict between and among rival ideological movements pushed intolerantly by rival tribes and groups.

 

Under individual rights, foes that disagree usually can work it out. Where individual rights prevail, dialogue, compromise and legally, peacefully resolving differences or live with linger disagreements peacefully.

 

Individual-living makes the individual more logical and more moderate, and less illogical, less irrational, and less fanatical—unlike how it is with nonindividuators that are group-livers. Altruism is evil (evil more than good) and egoism is good (good more than evil)

 

 

If we want to grow goodness, moderation, peace, and cooperation in society, we need individual rights, individual living, highlighting and prioritizing individual-living as being paramount, and that rational egoism or egoism-individualism as the superior moral system.

 

To grow evil is to group-live, to live by altruist-collectivist ethics, to emphasize the primacy of group rights over individual rights, and push group -living as nonindividuators. Nonindivudators are easy to frustrate and convert to the brutal true believing, subhuman lifestyle. This is what I think Hoffer, in The True Believer, is hinting at. This should be our moral takeaway form this wonderful small book.

 

 

The mass movement, or universal and radicalized groupism is permeated by fanaticism in belief and behavior, and that promotes malevolence and the growth and spread of wickedness and sinning in the world.

 

H: “It is true the true believer’s ability to ‘shut his eyes and stop his ears’ to facts that do not deseve to be seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger or disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and unpleasant realities of the world around him.

 

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from himself and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: It must be ‘contrary to nature, to common sense and to pleasure.”

 

My response: The attitudinal fanaticism of the true believer or ideologue is such that this total emotional, intellectual, and psychological belief in, devotion and commitment to his holy cause and its accompanying and emanating doctrines, rooted in the whole self-sacrifice and unified state for acting, from each member of the mass movement, renders this movement formidable and often insurmountable to thwart and stall.

 

We conservative believers and Republicans watch in wonder, envy, disgust, and horror at how the Democratic Senators and Representatives work together: their unity is impressive and makes them powerful, but it is born of wicked hearts. These true believers are united because they belong to the cultural Marxist mass movement running roughshod over America and the West.

 

They think, act, and vote as a powerful, unified block, without fear, without indecision, without hesitancy. They vote as one block to push forward their Marxist agenda and holding on to power. They are not wavering, disunited, intolerant Swampers, Leftist-hugging RINOs seeking to purge the principled conservatives in their caucus. Establishment Republicans in the Uni-Party would like to primary principled conservatives in their caucus out of existence if they could pull it off. What Swamp Republicans want in their caucus is to be surrounded by more tenuous, divided, bickering moderate, weak individualists, who make a mockery of the conservative agenda, and water down its superior ideas and its legislative agenda.

 

How do we get citizens and their representatives, on the conservative side, with God, morality and right on their side—for the most part-to show the daunting unity, constancy, and fortitude that Democratic ideologues show?

 

Well, we do not want to see Republicans do it by becoming Fascist or white nationalists, for the cure would be worse than the disease: the disunity, the quarreling, the cowardice, the elitist contempt for and ignoring the demands of voters, the circular-firing squad antics, the swamp-loving defeatist way of these pathetic, wimpy, unwise, disorganized, temporizing, half-hearted quislings running govern the country.

 

I offer a workable substitute: if millions of Americans become organized, principled but not true believers but serious sincere anarchist-individuator supercitizens, then they would have the unity, the fortitude, the constancy to stick together and wield power in our constitutional republic without resorting to the mass movement excesses that the Democrats/Socialists are inflicting upon the American people.