No subject

"Voegelin's first attempts to penetrate to the essence of National Socialism
were two books published in 1933 analyzing race theories-Rasse und Staat and
Die Rassenidee in der Geistesgeschichte. He showed that National Socialist
racism denied the fundamental humanity of Jews and other races, and, based
on his own studies with biology, that National Socialist race theory was not
science. Voegelin labeled this abuse of science for ideological purposes
rather than to understand reality as "scientism." The Nazi race idea had in
fact little to do with biology and ethnography. Rather, Voegelin believed
that racism was the symbolic expression of the ordering principle of German
nationalism. The elaborate use of scientific language gave comfort to the
ideologists that they were actually engaged in science seeking positive
truth. Nonetheless, no matter how elaborate the use of language was, it
still denoted little or nothing."


Note the date. Maybe Jung was just reading the wrong stuff. Voegelin, by the
way, was deeply interested in the question of mass enthusiasm elicited by
Nazis, and totalitarian regimes in general. He continued to refine his
theories over the years. A small sample (from p. 165)

'Voegelin observed that the Nazis were emotionally tribal because
"[t]ribalism is the answer to immaturity because it permits man to remain
immature with the sanction of his group."

'"But there were consequences for immaturity: good Germans who got
emotionally drunk on the harangues of the savior...and who shrank back in
horror when the program ... was trans- lated into political action."

Abandoning his earlier conjecture about the nature of "pre-Christian
paganism," Voegelin refined his views, describing Nazi symbolism as a mix of
immanent pagan tribalism within the symbols of Christianity.'


Any groups we know sanctioning this?

Buddhist content: The virtual absence of any serious political philosophy in
Buddhism leaves it bereft of adequate analytic tools for dealing with such
issues. It often had the luxury of deferring such issues to the actual
powers that be, with moral chirping from the sidelines -- in Europe a role
occupied by court jesters. Where Buddhists became the powers that be, the
extent to which the manner of rule reflected "Buddhist" political thought is
questionable. Buddhist rulers, in general, do not demonstrate a particularly
sterling track record (quick, name five Buddhist rulers aside from Asoka,
whom you admire -- HHDL doesn't rule anything), and when benign, usually no
more impressive than benign rulers elsewhere. One doesn't have to pursue a
Protestant Buddhism to believe that developing a Buddhist political
philosophy might not be a bad idea in this day and age, especially if one
wants to speak to world events with a Buddhist voice that has more bite than
a court jester's.

Dan