From Theology to Geopolitics and Economics

By: Jay

I am frustrated.  For years, I have dedicated a large portion of my time to research, and am constantly lectured by the clueless on topics of which they are clueless. This is especially true if you are in academic circles.  However, I understand that this is part of learning the world and how it works.  Nevertheless, though I spent years studying theology and religion, which was then supplemented with philosophy and history, I have branched out into espionage and tradecraft, geo-politics, race and economics.  The last few years have been spent immersing myself in those last four, and to be perfectly honest, I am particularly adept at gaining mastery of subjects very quickly.  I would in no way claim to have mastered these last four, as they are immense subjects.  Within three years, though, I have already read several key works in all four, and so I’m comfortable discussing them openly.

The point of this post is not to brag: I don’t have to. The point here is to mention that, as a remedy to frustration and as a means of growing in knowledge and interaction on more pertinent subject matter than merely films (though the film analyses will continue), I’ll be discussing new issues.  I am going to write more freely on my thoughts on a variety of issues, expanding that title “analysis.”  I do not at all profess mastery of these subjects, but I am becoming fluent in them.  On top of that, I am sick of being lectured by those who haven’t even branched out of their own narrow field of study.  All things are related, and all these subjects, as well as life experience, are interrelated.  Modern education is fragmented and no longer teaches a “worldview,” which was the whole meaning behind the word “university,” as Newman wrote.  Because all things are related, analysis should therefore include as much as one can fluent write about.

As I dove into geo-politics and race, I began with standard libertarian and conservative works back as far as 12 years ago, but in the last three years branched out into much more technical and numerous classical works on statecraft and civilization studies.   Aldous Huxley was instructive, insofar as The Perennial Philosophy makes lucid the kind of globalist philosophy he envisions.  Also relevant was Hegel’s work on the state, which point to a monolithic positive theory of absolutism wherein the individual is an atom of the whole to such a degree that personhood is not accorded to those outside the state.  Philosopher Charles Taylor has some good assessments of Hegel’s political theory, which can be seen as the precursor to modern absolutist fascism, as well as Marx’s statist stage of communism.  Marx was, of course, a Young Hegelian.  Collectivism seems ingrained in the mass man.  Indeed, Mussolini wrote defining “fascism” in regard to this “positive” action on the part of the state (as opposed to the Enlightenment liberal idea of the state’s existence being “negative,” merely restraining forces): Read more of this post