Modernist Conquistadores

19 12 2009

Surprisingly, though modernism flourished in the realm of the Industrial Revolution, its very beginnings are said to have originated with the conquistadores, who were among the first Europeans to discover the New World.  At first, this seems counter-intuitive, considering their over-all lack of technology, but it was their juxtaposition with the primitive inhabitants of the Americas that changed their perceptions of themselves.  Consequently, it was their haughty treatment of these peoples that epitomizes the attitude of the modern worldview that was to come.  If modern Europe was the modernist government, and Darwinism was to become the modernist religion, then the conquistadores were the founding fathers, religious though they seemed.  The discovery of America was the turning point in human thought.  They had faced the insurmountable barrier known as the Atlantic Ocean, and they had overcome.  Mankind was beginning to master nature.  In the dark regions of the mind, mankind presumed to be mastering God in the process.

The key point to consider, here, is their treatment of the native civilizations that they encountered.  Whatever advancements the Europeans had made to endeavor this journey, someone else had obviously accomplished as much, well ahead of them.  Europe was a latecomer in the game, like someone who arrives two hours late to a party, long after the festivities have gotten under way; he says, “You can start the party, now.  I’m here.”  The discoverers credited themselves with a continent that was already populated.  It didn’t matter to them that the natives were people, too, who had apparently found their way across an even broader expanse of ocean and lived to start a whole new society.  To the conquistadores they were dogs that had to be subdued just like the rest of nature.  They gave the natives European culture and European disease.  In return, they took native gold.

This mindset was fundamental to modernism in all places at all times.  People with less technology were fundamentally wrong, and their ideas were rejected outright.  Knowledge not gained purely through technology was always rejected, even if science demonstrated their validity.  All oral traditions, all folklore, and all traditional life were overthrown in the face of the advancing age of modernism.  Modernism claimed science as its own.  In fact, before modernism, there was no true science…or was there?  Somehow, people learned how to make all kinds of machines, domesticate wheat, pull metal out of rocks and build magnificent structures, all before the codification of the scientific method.  People were already practicing science intuitively before the modern version came along and put into paper what people were already doing.  Yet, the modern perspective was that in older times people were ignorant superstitious fools, incapable of arriving at any objective understanding of the world around them.  The modernists claimed discovery rights to a system of study that other, “primitive” peoples had already mastered.

Case in point: civilizations all across the globe have legends of fire-breathing dragons.  From the modernist perspective, this is just silly folk tradition.  Then, when the bones of large reptilian monsters are unearthed, instead of making the connection back to the oral history of dragons, they call these fossils “dinosaurs.”  As far as the modernists are concerned, humanity of times past knew nothing of them, and therefore no one could know anything about them from firsthand observation.  A safe buffer of a few jerkillion years is placed between the dragons and humanity to prevent unwanted contamination by the knowledge that was already there.  The outrageous arrogance of the conquistadores is still among us.  What if people really were around during the age of the dragons?  What if there really is something to be learned by investigation into the various traditions around the world?  When people so far apart from each other in so many different places and cultures have the same thing to say, then it’s a story that has been around since the origin of humanity, and it probably has some truth to it.  Sadly, though today’s scientists have accused the legends of having been fabricated, they, themselves, fabricate their own stories of dinosaurs and call it “science.”  No, this is not just another myth that your grandfather invented to entertain you at the fireplace.  Rather, it’s a myth that some scientist invented to entertain his children at the fireplace.  Your grandfather just borrowed it.

What is the basic premise to science?  You make a hypothesis, and then you seek out evidence to either prove or disprove it.  In the case of paleontology, they find the evidence first, and then they come to a conclusion.  There is no hypothesis.  Anyone can look at the bones and write their own story.  That’s not science.  The “primitive” cultures have already provided a hypothesis, which the scientific evidence has actually validated, rather than disproven, but modernism, being in control of what’s called science and what isn’t, rejects the validated claim of tradition in favor of the ideas invented yesterday.  They land upon a populated shore, survey the city of Tenochtitlan and see nothing but of field of cattle.  The forerunners are attributed no human dignity.

Another bone from the pile: the case of the sasquatch, yeti, Bigfoot, abominable snowman, and a few other synonyms.  Many honest people from many cultures all over the globe at various times have testified to seeing this fantastic creature.  Modern science rejects it.  Actually, science doesn’t reject it.  Modernism does.  But modernism defines what science is or isn’t, these days.  The biggest contention against the existence of the Bigfoot is the complete lack of skeletal remains.  Reasonably, there must be a dead one, somewhere, right?  The problem is the same as the one for dragons.  There are no dragon bones.  There are only dinosaur skeletons.  There are no Bigfoot bones.  There are only giant ground sloth remains.  Never mind that the two make a lovely match.  Modernism has placed a buffer of many years between humanity and the giant ground sloth.  We weren’t even around by the time those creatures went extinct…they say.  No matter how many Bigfoot skeletons are found, they will always be classified as giant ground sloth, and the connection will never be made between the two.  Modernism has insulated its myth from ours.  The tall tales of men and women in white frocks supercede those told by simple hunters who sat and watched their prehistoric ground sloth walk right in front of them.  We can’t say that these things are still alive, lest we make the thought masters look like fools.  The conquistadores have conquered our civilization and infected us with their disease.  Everything we believe must come from them.  Everything our parents taught us must be abandoned.

One last bone from the pile, though there are more: the Great Flood.  The story is as widespread as it is old.  Even the Native Americans had their own version of it.  The common theme among them all, throughout the world, is that a deity sought to destroy the world with a massive flood, but a small number of animals and humans were preserved on a boat, that they might repopulate the world.  It is another part of that common culture that the modernists sought to enslave.  If the modernist science didn’t teach it to us, then it must not be true.  If the whole world were really covered in a flood, then we would expect to see marine fossils atop the highest mountains.  Here we have not only a hypothesis, but also a means of testing it.  Go and look for fossils on the mountains.  Let science determine if you are right.  What’s that, you say?  Marine fossils have been found all over the place on many different tall mountains?  Why, that’s impossible!  Folklore is always wrong!  So what does science do?  It invents a story after the evidence has been found, not as a means of finding truth, but as a means of suppressing the native belief.  The earth cooled and buckled, sending jagged peaks above the water, taking fossils with them (somehow without completely destroying them in the process).  The story that the modernist invented yesterday is held above the one by various cultures for thousands of years.  Why?  There is no known source of water, and no place for it to have gone afterward.  That’s their primary argument.  The funny thing is that no one disputes that.  The Bible states that there was a great flood that covered the highest mountains, but the event was unnatural.  It was purely an act of God, a miracle that could not have happened unless God had made it so.  This is to say that the Flood was both impossible, and yet it happened.  The evidence revealed by science (real science), verifies this claim.  It was physically impossible, but the evidence remains that such a thing happened.  The explanation presented by the modernists is good, but not great.  However, they did not present a hypothesis, which makes their story hopelessly unscientific.  The Bible presented a testable hypothesis.  So far, the evidence has supported that hypothesis.

This is not a battle between science and religion.  This is a battle of religion against modernism, or it might be taken as a battle between traditional culture and modernism.  They have landed their arrogant conquistadores upon our shores, and they have sought to impress us with their technology and subdue us.  They wish to mold us into little versions of themselves.  Their aim is to see no God.  They would not have us see him, either.  If technology is the master of the universe, then the man with the most technology is a god.  He demands your allegiance.

I say it’s time to take up arms and kick these arrogant dogs off our land.




%d bloggers like this: