Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Special
I’ve been doing some reading, and I’ve come to a stunning conclusion. NASA has been lying to us for decades. There is life on Mars. Not just life, but human life.
With a little skill at computer photo manipulation, one can undo the false colorization and other attempts at hiding detail NASA has used in their photos taken by the Mars rovers to obscure the truth about Mars. Not only are there people, but also buildings, vehicles, and frighteningly enough, evidence of a major US military presence.
It is my belief that we are waging a significant war on Mars right now, and that this entire military campaign is being hidden from the population of the United States. Someone in our government is after something on Mars, but they don’t trust the population enough to let us in on the secret. Clearly this is a plot that needs to be exposed as soon as possible. The people deserve to know what their sons are dying for.
-----
I’ve been doing some reading, and I’ve come to a stunning conclusion. There are only a handful of people in the world that truly grasp the core ideals of Western civilization to the point of being able to effectively pass this information down to future generations.
It’s all detailed here, in an essay by Albert Jay Nock. In it, he draws a distinction between the masses and the remnant. According to Nock:
The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct… The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.
That is, the Remnant the few members of our society that are civilized, upstanding, moral, knowledgeable in the arts, sciences, and humanities, capable of recognizing and cultivating beauty, etc. The masses are… everyone else.
It is my belief that no matter what happens to the rest of society, this Remnant forms the backbone of a civilized society. Upon the onset of decadence in a society, these people are shoved into the background, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not. It is at this point that the quiet civilizing force that allows a culture to be both good and great goes into hiding, while the rest of the society decays in large part due to the absence of the influence of the Remnant. Then, the Remnant quietly try to survive to lend their civilizing force to whatever society rises from the ashes of the previous one.
The Remnant walk among us. They are not tattooed or branded or otherwise identifiable by sight. We can only identify them by meeting them and learning of their character and knowledge first-hand. We should do our best to help them in any way they can, and try ourselves to live up to the standards that come so naturally to them.
-----
A couple of weeks ago I was introduced to a forum of people that generally fit the stereotypical conspiracy theorist mold. Among the more bizarre people I ran across was someone that was using desktop photo manipulation software to “undo” the false coloring and “stretching” of images taken by the Mars rovers. It was clear to her, after these distortions were removed, that not only was there life on Mars, but there was a breathable atmosphere, a thriving civilization, and US military units.
Where she saw men in fedoras, everyone else saw piles of rocks.
There were a couple of people that gave her ideas some thought, but most ended up ridiculing her. It was decided that she was either a spectacularly tenacious troll, or mentally ill. Judging by what I read, my suspicion was that she was paranoid schizophrenic.
This person claimed to have special knowledge, knowledge that only she was sufficiently capable to unearth and bring to the attention of the world.
What bothered me about the whole thing was this: how is that so different from Nock? Nock claims knowledge of a special class of vitally important people that move in society largely unnoticed by the community at large. They typically chose to live in the background, and their influence on the society as a whole is subtle.
Not only that, but Nock claims that this hidden class of people is better than everyone else. Nock claims special knowledge of special people, people on whom the very survival of our civilization depends.
When I first read this, my reaction was split. The audacious arrogance of it all hit me first, followed by a gut feeling that Nock is absolutely right.
Some of you may be familiar with Nock and the spirit in which his words are intended. Nock writes and presents his ideas in a very factual manner, without intending them to be arrogant or showy. He presents the world as he sees it, without concern for the reaction of the reader to those ideas. Nock did not see himself as one of the Remnant, so he certainly wasn’t writing in an attempt to put himself on a pedestal. Nor do I think he was writing to give people an opportunity to declare themselves Remnant and pat themselves on the back. Rather, I think he was writing to encourage people to look inward and find ways to improve themselves, to work more towards living and being that ideal called the Remnant. One of Nock’s platitudes is that one cannot improve the world, one can only improve one’s self. However, one might work toward improving the world by encouraging others to improve themselves. Rather than singling out individuals for praise, I suspect this was his intent – to describe what he saw as the ideal human state, and even though few reach that state, many can be encouraged to improve themselves and strive toward that ideal.
I have been very reluctant to discuss some of Nock’s writings in public, his idea of the Remnant in particular, because of how his claim to special knowledge comes across to people. Those of us who prefer moral honorable behavior, and who value learning, knowledge, and understanding of our culture, already come across as strange to much of the populace. Now to push forth a theory that people like us, maybe even we ourselves, are the rock upon which civilization depends?
That comes across not only as astoundingly arrogant, but also cultish and kooky. Maybe not quite as bad as the fedoras on Mars lady, but close.
Is it possible to verify Nock’s assertion?
Typically any claims, bizarre ones in particular, are tested via the scientific method. The fedoras on Mars assertion is rather shallow, in that the lady’s claims to see things in the photographs was obviously false unless one has a spectacularly overactive imagination. But even so, we have cameras and rovers on Mars – those rock formations could be investigated close up. She claimed that NASA covered up evidence of human habitation by doctoring pictures. Raw data from these pictures can be found and analyzed. Some of this was done, all in vain, because the woman was not interested in a scientific analysis of her claims. However, this is a good example of the algorithms we instinctively go through to prove an assertion right or wrong.
Nock’s assertion about the Remnant does not lend itself nearly as well to such testing. Can we identify someone definitively as Remnant? Can we even make a definitive list of what characteristics such a person would have, in sufficient detail as to make identification possible? Can we provide concrete support for the claim that embodiment of this list of characteristics makes a person somehow better or more valuable than someone else?
I think the answer is no, because the crux of the argument lies on a personal value judgment. If one is interested in good outcomes for one’s self and one’s fellow man, one is led to have a moral code. No one is forced down this path, and this choice can not be proven to be better in the same sense that those rocks can be proven not to be a man in a fedora. To most of us, the good outcomes of morality are clear evidence of its superiority over the bad outcomes of nihilism. But nihilism is easy and self-indulgent, and thus many are drawn to it. When they ask for proof that your way is better, a very different value judgment way back in step one can make it impossible.
However, once one has moved past that step and accepted that good personal and societal outcomes are inherently better than bad outcomes, I think the rest of Nock’s argument follows. Western civilization is the culmination of thousands of years of trial and error, in many different ways. In terms of cultural habits that drive personal interaction. In terms of what we expect of our neighbors, from cleanliness to politeness. In terms of political systems that encourage freedom and discourage systematic oppression. In terms of economic systems that give everyone an opportunity to succeed, and with time, provide everyone who cares to take part a way to provide for their own basic needs. Knowledge of and belief in the superiority of these governmental and economic structures requires not just a grounding in western morality, but also in history and the other social sciences. Many can simply understand that system X means I have freedom and food, and system Y means I starve and get daily beatings. But do people understand why personal behaviors A, B, and C are intimately tied into the success of system X, while behaviors D, E, and F break down system X and move it inexorably toward system Y? Most, even those that understand the superiority of X over Y do not.
That, I believe, is where the Remnant comes in - as a societal storehouse of the knowledge necessary to build a prosperous and functional society. Even if the current society were to break down, the Remnant would go on, as their knowledge of what is good and right goes beyond mere knowledge into the very core of their beings and behavior. They and their knowledge will always be there to draw upon, if ever society has need to call upon them.
Nock’s claim of special knowledge of special people can come across as nutty in a similar way as the fedoras on Mars lady to those whose value system diverges from ours at step one. Unfortunately, it seems that as our culture coarsens more and more, those who value the ideals embodied in the Remnant become increasingly marginalized. Ideas like the existence of the Remnant get swatted down simply because our new definition of democracy has been socialized - it is a culture in which no one is better than anyone else, and anyone claiming special knowledge or special status is some combination of kooky and dangerous.
For that reason, I don’t go out of my way to shout Nock’s ideas from the rooftops. But it comforts me to know these people are out there, and I take great joy in occasionally meeting one personally. In the meantime, I do my best to bring their ideals and knowledge into my own life, for my own enrichment as much as for that of society as a whole. If I can raise children that carry on those ideals to future generations, I will consider my life to have been a success.
Comments
-
Nock’s whole point about The Remnant was that it was NOT a secret society—in fact, one major characteristic about The Remnant is that they shy away from “joining” anything, and in fact generally deny being a part of any such thing.
It’s not false modesty, either. It’s an instinctive move away from crowds, ANY crowds, even crowds with whom one shares an affinity, with the certain knowledge that any time a group tries to do something, they screw it up.
Remnancy would be no different from any other “crowd-based” activity, hence Nock’s insistence that the goal of the Remnant is self- and family-, not societal improvement.
I’ve always suspected that the Gummint was not telling us everything they know about Mars, though.
(Mr.) Kim du Toit | 8/12/2008 02:18 PM CDT -
This was a topic much discussed on the E3 site after one of Bill’s essays. As Kim pointed out, the Remnant aren’t self identifying ... and likely wouldn’t consider themselves such (although many would volumteer, LOL). The discussion mostly agreed that such folks wouldn’t actually become evident until such time as they were “needed” ... like a total societal meltdown.
pete in Midland | 8/14/2008 10:33 AM CDT -
If you put a different angle on your view, you might have a slightly easier time accepting the remnant (or at least feel more comfortable).
A normal distribution, or bell curve, describes many attributes of human nature and ability. There are always right-tailers and left-tailers. There are always some behaviors that are inherently more successful than others. I see the remnant as those people on the right tail who have abilities and natures that are inherently successful in a moral, an intellectual, or a societal way.
I didn’t read it as Nock’s claiming “special” knowledge of them. I read it as more a product of long observation of people and a familiarity with historical opinions on the same topic.
They’re naturally there. And I’m glad. I think I know one or two.
Weetabix | 8/14/2008 05:59 PM CDT -
I agree that Nock isn’t claiming special knowledge of them, at least in the sense that he has knowledge that is not available to other people.
But present his argument to the average Joe who doesn’t know and doesn’t care about the context in which Nock is writing. Nock says that the average Joe is a worthless schmuck, and that this small hidden group of people is going to save the world.
It comes across as just a couple steps shy of an apocalyptic preacher who claims that his flock is saved while the rest of you are damned to hell.
American Farmer | 8/15/2008 07:16 AM CDT -
You’re right, of course. But I must confess to a certain bias toward Mr. Nock’s view....
Weetabix | 8/15/2008 08:46 AM CDT -
I think the more important point (or another point, not as important) is that it doesn’t matter. They have to be there because civilization (in the good/real meaning of the word) has continued, and without the Remnant’s constant existence that could not have happened.
It isn’t important to know who they are or whether we should or can count ourselves among its rolls… only what Nock said:
1. They exist.
2. You can never know who they are or what they do.
3. They will find the good and trash the worthless.I can live with that, but have as much curiosity as finding signs of them throughout history as he did. Any sign that they existed, even if 200 years or 2000 years ago, is exciting, regardless of how many or how few.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/15/2008 10:06 AM CDT -
This raises the question of how the remnant is formed. It could not be a “remnant” unless it was formed from the mass. Since even the masses are not homogeneous, consisting of many minorities of many and overlapping kinds, then surely Nok’s remnant is just another (albeit small) minority.
My thesis for how this minority is formed and replenished is that it springs genetically from each generational mass - in my book this makes it nature, not nurture. Which is why they are not and never will be some identifiable elite.
But having thus formed, they are (and have to be) nurtured by the works, in all the forms thereof, of previous generations of the remnant. For this very reason it is wrong to say that we can never know who they are or what they do. “By their works shall ye know them” even as they labour in relative obscurity.
RooiJan | 10/2/2008 02:07 AM CDT
