Thanks to my regular contributors for some excellent comments. "You know someone you die with better than someone you live with;" and the 'ol crouch under the desk, hold your hands over your head, and kiss your ass goodbye memories. Yes, some good nightmares from that one.
And, one way or another, it points back to genius. As the book, Divine Fury, draws to a conclusion, we can see that the author is drawing us inevitably to the greatest monster - the worst evil genius - in the European pantheon of monsters. Lenin and Stalin are up there, too, but their's was the bizarre, semi-Asiatic world of far Eastern Europe. But Germany, people thought they knew - as the very rulers of rationality, the British, had Germans as their rulers (and were in part Anglo-Saxon, or German, themselves). We saw in the book "The Garden of Beasts", how quickly Hitler was able to dominate the German public, as if by magic - but we learn from McMahon, our author on genius, that they were well-prepped to do so, as was much of Europe, due to the radical development of the cult of genius. Edgar Zilsel was the first to be explicit about this cult, publishing his findings in 1918. What troubled him most was the amorality of genius then conceived - that Genius, like god, made its own rules, taking up the voice of the people to further them, and him, to a higher level. And this was not a territory for anti-Semites and right-wingers alone. In 1925, the USSR formed the so-called Moscow Brain Institute, initially to proclaim scientifically the genius of Vladimir Lenin as well as his successor, Stalin, but its long-term goals were eugenic in nature - to try to determine what made the genius and thus cultivate it for the "people's paradise." Later in the USSR, Marx was cited as being contrary to natural genius, himself being a strict social environmentalist, and the institute was officially closed - but its work continued, and continues, the author claims, to this day. Such was and is the reach of the cult of genius.
As mentioned, the genius was seen as free - above - morality, and thus could do anything at all for the greater good of the future of Man, a good which only he could foresee. Among intellectuals throughout Europe, this notion took hold, and filtered down the learning chain to the general populations at large. As Lenin famously said, "you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette," and many in Europe, their ties to the old religions weakened or shattered, agreed (this is a key point, the author tells us - that genius substituted for religion and god). They admired the geniuses in their midst and excused or even admired their eccentricities and even moral outrages. This has continued in some form to us today - isn't the genius strange? Isn't he often given to special urges? (even the good genius Einstein had numerous mistresses.) Thus we see that the table was set; all Europe needed was a country that saw itself either in desperate straights (Russia in 1918) or rudderless (Germany in the Wiemar Republic; post WWII China - its leaders influenced by Europe - was both). When genius in these nations- evil or not, as no one could tell but the genius himself - showed itself, the people fell in line with ready quickness.
Genius: savior or Satan? They can be both. And in the quest for survival - in those desperate situations - there arises in many one aspect or the other: the saint or the devil. And I believe, just as the people did and do in the cult of genius, that a certain leader can make all the difference - that he or she can coalesce the fears and hates or the hopes and dreams of a people, turning them towards angels or demons. In Democracy, it is thought that the will of the people at large signals the will of heaven - or, put in a less spiritual way, it is the will that directs us to the good and the right. We are, our founders believed, endowed with such goodness - and communal genius - by our creator. But still we flirt with the cult of genius - the cult of the singular being - all the time. How many elections have been won by a charismatic presentation? How many presidents have been elected on a wave of sentiment that carries little to nothing in substance? Without our certain laws, there is little question that we could fall to the singular power of the political genius. Heaven forbid. And our laws will only so protect us as long as we insist that the laws are followed.
The price of Freedom is, indeed, vigilance, but we need our geniuses, too. It seems that the price of freedom might also lie in the curtailing of certain freedoms among our geniuses. That this seems contradictory to the law of genius is fitting - as a genius, by definition, never really fits in. FK
And, one way or another, it points back to genius. As the book, Divine Fury, draws to a conclusion, we can see that the author is drawing us inevitably to the greatest monster - the worst evil genius - in the European pantheon of monsters. Lenin and Stalin are up there, too, but their's was the bizarre, semi-Asiatic world of far Eastern Europe. But Germany, people thought they knew - as the very rulers of rationality, the British, had Germans as their rulers (and were in part Anglo-Saxon, or German, themselves). We saw in the book "The Garden of Beasts", how quickly Hitler was able to dominate the German public, as if by magic - but we learn from McMahon, our author on genius, that they were well-prepped to do so, as was much of Europe, due to the radical development of the cult of genius. Edgar Zilsel was the first to be explicit about this cult, publishing his findings in 1918. What troubled him most was the amorality of genius then conceived - that Genius, like god, made its own rules, taking up the voice of the people to further them, and him, to a higher level. And this was not a territory for anti-Semites and right-wingers alone. In 1925, the USSR formed the so-called Moscow Brain Institute, initially to proclaim scientifically the genius of Vladimir Lenin as well as his successor, Stalin, but its long-term goals were eugenic in nature - to try to determine what made the genius and thus cultivate it for the "people's paradise." Later in the USSR, Marx was cited as being contrary to natural genius, himself being a strict social environmentalist, and the institute was officially closed - but its work continued, and continues, the author claims, to this day. Such was and is the reach of the cult of genius.
As mentioned, the genius was seen as free - above - morality, and thus could do anything at all for the greater good of the future of Man, a good which only he could foresee. Among intellectuals throughout Europe, this notion took hold, and filtered down the learning chain to the general populations at large. As Lenin famously said, "you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette," and many in Europe, their ties to the old religions weakened or shattered, agreed (this is a key point, the author tells us - that genius substituted for religion and god). They admired the geniuses in their midst and excused or even admired their eccentricities and even moral outrages. This has continued in some form to us today - isn't the genius strange? Isn't he often given to special urges? (even the good genius Einstein had numerous mistresses.) Thus we see that the table was set; all Europe needed was a country that saw itself either in desperate straights (Russia in 1918) or rudderless (Germany in the Wiemar Republic; post WWII China - its leaders influenced by Europe - was both). When genius in these nations- evil or not, as no one could tell but the genius himself - showed itself, the people fell in line with ready quickness.
Genius: savior or Satan? They can be both. And in the quest for survival - in those desperate situations - there arises in many one aspect or the other: the saint or the devil. And I believe, just as the people did and do in the cult of genius, that a certain leader can make all the difference - that he or she can coalesce the fears and hates or the hopes and dreams of a people, turning them towards angels or demons. In Democracy, it is thought that the will of the people at large signals the will of heaven - or, put in a less spiritual way, it is the will that directs us to the good and the right. We are, our founders believed, endowed with such goodness - and communal genius - by our creator. But still we flirt with the cult of genius - the cult of the singular being - all the time. How many elections have been won by a charismatic presentation? How many presidents have been elected on a wave of sentiment that carries little to nothing in substance? Without our certain laws, there is little question that we could fall to the singular power of the political genius. Heaven forbid. And our laws will only so protect us as long as we insist that the laws are followed.
The price of Freedom is, indeed, vigilance, but we need our geniuses, too. It seems that the price of freedom might also lie in the curtailing of certain freedoms among our geniuses. That this seems contradictory to the law of genius is fitting - as a genius, by definition, never really fits in. FK
RSS Feed