Myth O’Rama

Selecting Self-Flattery as Truth

I awoke haunted by a line from Thomas DiLorenzo, The Real LincolnA New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. The book’s been haunting me for a year or so, costing me rare remaining friendships, though stimulating the hell out of my most important friendship. (Jan and I are reading it together!) (And that is deteriorating her remaining friendships!) DiLorenzo latches on the idea of the right (or lack of right) of secession: once the American states had formed a United States, did those states have any right to un-join? Jefferson had argued that any people have the right, always, to secede, to un-join, any unhealthy union.

Secession
thanx pbs

(I was sensitized to such issues by GB Shaw’s position on divorce: she wants out? let’r out. or him.)
(I paraphrase: ignore the human-concocted god, priest, etc., ignore the human-authored law …)

divorce
thanx native law

Divorce? It’s the same thing! Is who you sleep with up to you? (and her, or him?) or your group? and its god?
(Can humans under a central authority imagine that they’re free?) (Humans can imagine a lot!)

Lincoln wanted the US, white English speakers, to develop west, exterminate the plains Indians, colonize the world: that could hardly be accomplished by a Dis-united States. Jefferson wanted “states rights”; Hamilton etc. wanted centralized banking, bailouts for rich friends: a federal one-State. Centralized coercion: funded from your pocket (and from burning the candle at three ends).

DiLorenzo writes:

Lincoln’s insistence that no such right existed has no basis whatsoever in history or fact. He essentially invented a new theory — that the federal government created the states, which were therefore not sovereign — and waged the bloodiest war in world history up to that point to “prove” himself right.

So many “rights”: the right referred to is of course Lincoln’s position that states, groups of states, individuals, etc. do NOT have the right of secession.

Lincoln invented an entirely fictional history: and we still live under the command of that fiction. Spieberg, a talented fiction-manager in Hollywood, puts the weight of more hundreds of millions into the service of the fiction. And the public takes from it, in perfect imitation of Lincoln, the co-myth that “we” committed civil atrocities, burned our way to Atlanta, destroying women and children as well as conscripts, as well as mercinary soldiers, out of purely moral motives!

Sherman Atlanta march
Sherman Atlanta march
thanx thesportsbank

School children, and their co-slave parents, imagine, are choreographed-in-imagining, that they submit to propaganda machinery so that they’ll learn, be educated! (As though the state-concocted schools were learned! or that education were anything but a disease specific to kleptocracies.)

* * *

Currently the earth is much impacted upon by human societies: breeding, colonizing, warring: breeding monoculture while talking diversity. Human societies are dominated by factions, some with an at least partial basis in biology: male-dominant, female-dominant; one-or-another method-of-exploitation-dominant … The common denominator, while humans dominate, is that the dominants get to make up, then modify, whatever myths they want. But, it’s always more than one myth: monoculture has not been perfectly achieved (and I suspect is not achievable, not completely.

The major myth I was trained to when I was a kid was the myth of Creation: creation by a dominant male magician who dispensed laws from the top of a hierarchy. The immature, the not-too-bright, will think: Oh, we revere God! (God is good! We must be good!)
(We’re not smart, but we are subtle!)

In strict parallel: We say that Lincoln ended slavery. (Therefore, we ended slavery.) Never mind that the rest of the West also ended slavery in those same couple of decades, in all other cases without war!

See? We humans pretend that we’re talking about something grand: God, abolition … No, no: we’re talking about ourselves: with us the moral, intelligent, courageous heroes of our group fictions.

There are true “facts” mixed in with our fictitious facts. (Mendacity, self-deception, play-acting …) But which are which?
Are humans capable of accurate map-making?
To some degree, Yes, in some circumstances.
But is it reliable?

I’d bet against it. But who am I betting with? Certainly not any human being. And not with any God who made the world (by abracadabra fiat) six thousand years ago.

Oh? What’s left?

A whole cosmos. The truth.

PS An objective test would be to see if there are any humans under a centralized authority in one hundred years, in one thousand years, in N-thousand years … And if there aren’t what is there instead? Are there any humans period?
Do they still weave myths.

And understand: I never mean by myth simple falsehood. A lie and a myth are not synonyms. A myth is a kind of explanation, an exploitation at a meta-level; a lie is merely false. A myth is hope for the ego.

Sentience & Semiotics

About pk

Seems to me that some modicum of honesty is requisite to intelligence. If we look in the mirror and see not kleptocrats but Christians, we’re still in the same old trouble.
This entry was posted in sentience semiotics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s