Whilst researching Jacque Fresco, the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist films (yet another word stolen from our lexicon!), I happened upon an explanation for the underpinnings of thought accompanying this type of movement.
What follows will help clarify to the small-l libertarian and the average Internet user what exactly is happening with regard to what I call secular pietism: a striving for purity.
On a site — Zeitgeist Movement Exposed — which debunks the Venus Project and its attendant films, blogger James Kush walks us through the process, which includes communitarianism, Abraham Maslow’s ‘peak experiences’ and a drive for personal purity. As far as I am concerned, the following excerpts have less to say about leftist Jacque Fresco’s Venus Project and carry a greater bearing on bans on this, that and the other which have been strangely endemic over the past 30 years.
In ‘Zeitgeist Cult Characteristics’ Mr Kush has two sections of import, borrowed from Rick Ross’s cult-busting site, which appears to have been taken down. One is called The Demand for Purity. Emphases mine (and italics in the original) in the passages below:
In the thought reform milieu, as in all situations of ideological totalism, the experiential world is sharply divided into the pure and the impure, into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil. The good and the pure are of course those ideas, feelings, and actions which are consistent with the totalist ideology and policy; anything else is apt to be relegated to the bad and the impure. Nothing human is immune from the flood of stern moral judgments. All “taints” and “poisons” which contribute to the existing state of impurity must be searched out and eliminated.
Thought reform bears witness to its more malignant consequences: for by defining and manipulating the criteria of purity, and then by conducting an all-out war upon impurity, the ideological totalists create a narrow world of guilt and shame. This is perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, a demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist but is in fact alien to the human condition.
It rather sounds like Rick Warren’s New Age-inspired Daniel Plan for health. I hope the participants don’t end up like this:
The individual thus comes to apply the same totalist polarization of good and evil to his judgments of his own character: he tends to imbue certain aspects of himself with excessive virtue, and condemn even more excessively other personal qualities – all according to their ideological standing. He must also look upon his impurities as originating from outside influences – that is, from the ever-threatening world beyond the closed, totalist ken. Therefore, one of his best way to relieve himself of some of his burden of guilt is to denounce, continuously and hostilely, these same outside influences. The more guilty he feels, the greater his hatred, and the more threatening they seem. In this manner, the universal psychological tendency toward “projection” is nourished and institutionalized, leading to mass hatreds, purges of heretics, and to political and religious holy wars. Moreover, once an individual person has experienced the totalist polarization of good and evil, he has great difficulty in regaining a more balanced inner sensitivity to the complexities of human morality. For these is no emotional bondage greater than that of the man whose entire guilt potential – neurotic and existential – has become the property of ideological totalists.
Isn’t that the truth? So many people these days are hostile and judgmental. I really do believe a fair number of them could work great acts of violence if given the go-ahead. That includes some churchgoers, I’m afraid. Meanwhile, the rest of us look on from the sidelines, aghast.
Mr Kush adds a few prescient observations of his own, one of which really nails leftist thought — the notion that anything they disagree with represents destruction. (This recent edict of don’ts from the City of New York to its Health Department employees follows this line of thought.)
An example of zeitgeist dividing the absolute good from the absolute evil includes a segment (audio was made exclusive only to members that downloaded the program from the official site; once the segment was exposed, the complete radio broadcast was removed) … The Zeitgeist movement believes that everything in the world today is destructive, including families, laws, governments, currency, nations, cultures, states, languages, religions, god, the list goes on and on. Everything is destructive except for The Venus Project which is “perfection” and “heaven on earth”.
The next section, also from the Rick Ross site, is about ‘sacred science’. And, those of us who have been following the Church of Gaia (aka the ‘Climate Change’ priesthood) along with the many worldwide bans and excessive taxation on legal products. When he speaks about the Word, he does not appear to be referring to the Bible but a received secular paradigm:
The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute “scientific” precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also “unscientific.” In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science. The assumption here is not so much that man can be God, but rather that man’s ideas can be God: that an absolute science of ideas (and implicitly, an absolute science of man) exists, or is at least very close to being attained; that this science can be combined with an equally absolute body of moral principles; and that the resulting doctrine is true for all men at all times. Although no ideology goes quite this far in overt statement, such assumptions are implicit in totalist practice.
This explains so much, so clearly. But, why is this true for a vocal minority when it isn’t for most of the world’s population?
… the totalist sacred science can offer much comfort and security. Its appeal lies in its seeming unification of the mystical and the logical modes of experience (in psychoanalytic terms, of the primary and secondary thought processes) … Since the distinction between the logical and the mystical is, to begin with, artificial and man-made, an opportunity for transcending it can create an extremely intense feeling of truth ...
Yet so strong a hold can the sacred science achieve over his mental processes that if one begins to feel himself attracted to ideas which either contradict or ignore it, he may become guilty and afraid. His quest for knowledge is consequently hampered, since in the name of science he is prevented from engaging in the receptive search for truth which characterizes the genuinely scientific approach. And his position is made more difficult by the absence, in a totalist environment, of any distinction between the sacred and the profane: there is no thought or action which cannot be related to the sacred science. To be sure, one can usually find areas of experience outside its immediate authority; but during periods of maximum totalist activity (like thought reform) any such areas are cut off, and there is virtually no escape from the milieu’s ever-pressing edicts and demands.
This is still the best explanation I’ve read yet of the attraction to secular pietism and healthism coupled with bogus ‘sacred science’.
N.B.: Whilst reading the Rick Ross pieces, I gathered that he was not Christian. However, his blog has news archives about all types of cults of various secular and religious persuasions from around the world.





4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 8, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Linda Kimball
You asked, ” But, why is this true for a vocal minority when it isn’t for most of the world’s population?”
Fyodor Dostoevsky probed deep into the psyches of the systematizers of the totalist milieu. He described them as the “terrible willed” ones. Pride is certainly a factor here. But so is envy. Read my just published essay entitled “Calling Evil By Its’ Name.” I think it will put you on the right track:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35263
April 8, 2011 at 11:16 pm
churchmouse
Thank you, Linda, for sharing that article with my readers and me. What a powerful yet concise critique of leftist thought. Only this week I read Pastor Wurmbrand’s Marx and Satan, which I shall explore on the blog after Lent. Shocking, to say the least. I loved Marx when I was in high school and really did believe that what he said came straight out of the New Testament!
Now I read that Glenn Beck will no longer have his daily slot on Fox after this year. He really brought modern history much closer to all of us who love America.
Take-aways for me from your article are the following:
- ‘Progressive “elites” are haters of God the Father’, as referenced by the 2 Tim. 3:2 citation.
- ‘When these materialized souls speak of a god, it is a dead god—-a god of forces.’ So New Age, as referred to in my posts of this week (e.g. Eckhart Tolle).
- ‘… progressivism is neo-pagan monism. Monism is held in common by materialism, pantheism, and spiritualism and dates back to pagan antiquity and was or is taught by all non-biblical thought systems from Buddhism to Epicureanism, Gnosticism and today’s New Age Cosmic Humanism. Monism teaches that all that exists is “one self-creating, self-sufficient substance” which may be impersonal, unknowing divine spirit or Christ-consciousness (pantheism) or spiritless substance (materialism). Within this framework, all things are merely diverse parts of the one-substance.’ Yet, so many people have forgotten — or have never known about — those heresies. I read this week where a Protestant minister lamented that he never taught his congregation what they shouldn’t believe!
- ‘Progressive “elites” are envy-bitten hypocrites who project their own wickedness onto others, that is, onto scapegoats who they daily crucify…psychologically abuse. The abuse takes many forms …’ How true — I’ve lived through that in the workplace. For the believer, it is completely baffling: ‘How could they have come up with that??’
- ‘Progressive “elites” are nihilists. Their souls are materialized (turned inward), thus they are prisoners of their own cosmically-inflated egos, out-of-control envy, lusts, perversions, greed, gluttony, and wrath as well as of afflictions of the mind—-paranoia, fear of the void, anxiety dreams, evil fantasies, and peculiar ideas.’ Yes, sadly, I — like many others — have experienced that also, personally and professionally.
- ‘As gods, the hypocritical Ruling Class naturally think Americans are completely unfit to run their own lives, yet morality and common sense are anathema to them.’ Yes, our parents raised us to be responsible adults. Now we realise that we have been adults for a considerable period of time only to discover that, in the leftists’ eyes, we are but children (yet, over-the-top taxpayers!!). Most unfortunate.
- ‘Though the evil view themselves as faultless, in reality their conscience is depraved, and a depraved conscience is the most destructive force in political, social, economic, and cultural life. This is because though the intellect remains intact, reason is warped and peculiarly inverted, thus useless for pursuit of the good, the just and the true. In short, guided by a depraved conscience, reason is used in pursuit of the preservation of self-image at any cost. This is sophistry.’ Truer words were never written (at least for a long while!).
- Sophistry’s’ favorite Scripture is “judge not.” The only judgment is the judgment against moral judgment. The only sin is the idea that sin exists. Yes, indeed — we can see it all around us, online and offline, in church and back outside in the world.
- Sophistry is all the rage in contemporary America, even though it prefers longer, more intellectual sounding names to dupe the gullible. Thus for example, it calls itself postmodernism, epistemological relativism, antifoundationalism, pragmatism, situational ethics, sensitivity training, pluralism, multiculturalism, interfaith, evolutionary humanism, transhumanism, positivism, rationalism, and progressivism. If I may say so, I sincerely propose that you take over the Glenn Beck daily slot. How are you with a chalkboard and a red telephone??
Thank you again and have a good weekend!
April 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm
lleweton
I have long suspected that health zealots are as they are because of a dread of their individual mortality. it is good to see this idea so clearly expressed here. It is as if they think that if they drive the ‘impure’ person into the wilderness he will carry their mortality with his. And the more zealous they are about it, the safer they will be. Thus healthism becomes a substitute for religion but it offers not grace, forgiveness or hope.
As for issues of social control, mentioned in other posts here I have also long suspected an agenda going beyond physical welfare and more to do with, perhaps, an unconscious yearning for a uniform society of identikit people: clean, safe, malleable. The purpose? I don’t know. I don’t know even whether it is a conscious purpose. But it has already created a climate where many people can see an octogenarian wheeled out from her hospital on to a January pavement to smoke a cigarette and for the respectable onlooker not to experience even a spark of compassion.
Conscious or unconscious on the part of the controllers? I don’t know but it must be 25 years ago or more, since the BBC was reported to have banned smoking throughout Broadcasting House. I thought then that in time smokers – often the creative and, maybe eccentric people -would be bred out of the opinion- forming classes. That has more or less happened.
Then, of course, another development has been the loss of those havens of individuality and independence – our local pubs.
April 9, 2011 at 8:34 pm
churchmouse
Yes, I agree, Llew. We still have so-called ‘creative’ people, but they are ‘identikit’ (e.g. Marcus Bridgstocke) — another reason why I have stopped watching shows like Have I Got News for You. If that’s creative, then I’m the Pope.
I hadn’t realised that the smoking ban at Broadcasting House had been going on so long. That tells us something.