The Whig Interpretation of History
The Self-Delusions of Empire
by JOSEPH RICHARDSON
Each generation views history through the lens of its own political standpoint. During the 19th century, Whig historians had no qualms about arguing that the present was the blessed culmination of years of development along predestined lines. Sir Thomas Macaulay, in his monumental ‘History of England’, wrote that his purpose was to show:
how, from the auspicious union of order and freedom, sprang a prosperity of which the annals of human affairs had furnished no example; how our country, from a state of ignominious vassalage, rapidly rose to the place of umpire among European powers; how her opulence and her martial glory grew together; how, by wise and resolute good faith, was gradually established a public credit fruitful of marvels which to the statesmen of any former age would have seemed incredible
It is of interest to compare the ‘eonic model’ with the Whig Interpretation of history, as described here. We can see that teleological thinking has deluded these Whig historians, that, and a false ‘patriotic’ syndrome. But, you might ask, doesn’t the eonic model make a similar mistake? In a way it does, but with a difference: the teleological aspect doesn’t include capitalism as an end-state, includes a balanced set of modern nations, a balanced set of ancient nations in a global balance, a finite transition interval instead of a ‘teleological buildup’, and a moral principle as a fail safe: there can be many kinds of teleology: you can program the future, or you can program the potential to create that future, by men, who must act morally to produce the right result. The endless failures, among them the creation of empires and the loss of principle in practice. The eonic model makes clear that ’empires’ are a decay factor in the macroseque3nce… There is a lot more here, but clearly the eonic model, despite its propensity to being misunderstood, one reason I tend to keep in safe in obscure jargon, leaves the Whig nonsense in the dust. The question in the end is simple: the temporary empires vanish in short order, and the British empire is now in the past. So the macro model shows a different logic: how will a British economic transition advance globalization? That is a totally different perspective than that of the patriotir imperialist, swiftly sinking the chances of his own allegiance. As that global influences degenerates into imperialism, the effort boomerangs, and the process terminates. Americans wold do well to see their fate if their influence follows the same route. It takes but a short look at Iraq to see how clever the rogues of imperailism are in destroying the potential of a great modernizing influence: the destruction of Iraq was sold in the name of democracy, but the reality was a new brand of empire, apparently. The future of the American system is thus foreshortened according, even as the Nietzchean neo-cons proclaim their barbarian virtues… It won’t be long for the American system…the jackals are circling…
Capitalism seems to abrogate laws of morality in favor of self-interest, but that is misleading. The individual has a choice, to be a sacrifice in an economic system, or to persist in ethical behavior ‘outside’ (mentally) of such markets. The judgment is built into this system, furthermore, and doesn’t require nonsense about karma. The counsel of Nietzsche, as it degenerates into the Ayn Rand brand is highly delusive: the reality is that the ‘supermen’ survivors here are evolutionary vermin destined for destruction.
Why not a more rational system??!!!