Indigenous Anthropology: A Cultural Revolution that Threatens Christian Latin America (IV)
Equating man with animals
Egalitarian materialism reduces man, created in the image and likeness of God and endowed with intelligence, will and sensibility, to the category of mere animal:
God established an admirable order in creation and put animals, endowed with remarkable instinct but irrational, under the dominion of man, created in the divine image and likeness, as true king of creation (cf. Fr. L. Fillion, Gén., Sainte Bible commentée)
“The theory of culture must be based on biological facts. Human beings constitute an animal species” (Malinowski, 1975, Boivin: 59).
“Being the only animal that domesticated himself, man cannot return to a natural state (like a pet)…” (Claude Levi-Strauss, Boivin: 62).
Magrassi uses the following expressions: “The only animal that possesses and creates complex symbolic codes;” “In some other types of animals…;” “All animals (except man)…” (o.c.:61).
Anthropologist Magrassi, then professor at UCA Catholic Universities and Salvador University in Buenos Aires, continues:
“…It is certain that only man, as a symbolic animal that he is, possesses and makes culture, and that the acculturation process is typically and primitively human (which makes it different, do not confuse with better);” (oc: 61).
Destruction of the traditional concept of culture
The Fall of the Barriers of Horror
In the 1970s, General Lanusse, president of Argentina, was a champion of the “fall of ideological barriers” with its disastrous sequels. Revolutionary anthropologists are active promoters of the fall of other barriers: those of horror.
Such barriers are psychological resources of the human soul to defend against the horror so frequent in the daily life of savage peoples with their orgiastic parties, consumption of human flesh, promiscuity, unreason. After a prolonged stay with the Guarani (who finally martyred him although he gave them work tools that would enable them to produce in order to live), St. Roque Gonzalez de Santa Cruz feared losing his mind (R.P. Chichizola, S.J., 1990: 29).
It is typical of a rebel to try to break the mental barriers and habits of common sense and good taste that remain in our days.
One way to spread this lack of intellectual modesty is to comment on tremendous things with an indifferent air–similar to what TV and radio constantly do. This is the tone of American anthropologist Laura Bohannan in her story, “Shakespeare in the Jungle,” aimed at university students, intellectuals and snobs.
He tried to explain the plot of “Hamlet” and the idea of “ghost” to the members of an African tribe of Tiv. At a certain moment he tells them, quite naturally, using images familiar to them: “No no! It was not a corpse the sorcerers had to sacrifice and eat.”
Later, he completes his explanation in terms appropriate to the audience: “Laertes had to follow the second path: to kill his sister by witchcraft, drowning her to secretly sell her body to sorcerers” (Boivin: 77).
Sprinkling a text with such phrases accustoms the reader to these horrors, contrary to the recommendation of St. Paul regarding impurity: “let those things not be named among you.”
The reality that emerges in these dialogues reminds us of the acts of cannibalism in the Congo War and the barbarism, frequent among South Africans, of believing that by raping a white baby (!) they will be cured of AIDS.
Nonetheless, revolutionary anthropologists teach that all cultures are equal and must be judged according to their own parameters.
Based on this relativistic principle, biased anthropologists justify any behavior, including the sin against nature. Their tactic is to present it in the “lightest” possible way, sometimes by contrasting it with supposedly more serious sins of our society. It is another “capacity” developed by these pseudo-scientists.
Thus, in the Nambiqwara tribe (of Brazil), they justify homosexuality by claiming that polygamous chiefs deprive young men of women: “… these replacement solutions (sic!) are made necessary by the privilege of polygamy…”
Nambiqwara aborigines of the Amazon, with their deplorable customs, which indigenist anthropologists strive to maintain
This is the "replacement" to which he refers:
“Homosexual relations are only allowed between adolescents … crossed cousins … in which one of them is normally destined to be the husband of the sister of the other, to whom … the brother temporarily serves as a substitute” ( Levi-Strauss, Tristes tropiques, apud Boivin: 82).
The fact itself and the way of presenting it are highly outrageous.
"Positive anthropophagy"- Attack on the Penal System of the West
Here Levi-Strauss overdoes himself in destructive cynicism. He distinguishes “forms of anthropophagy that can be called positive, those that depend on mystical, magical or religious causes…”
This “ingestion of a particle” (only one!) “of the body of an forefather or a fragment” (only a fragment!) “of an enemy’s corpse” is not so serious as it is done “to allow the incorporation of his virtues or the neutralization of his power.” He also clarifies that “such rites are generally carried out in a very discreet manner” (Levi-Strauss, apud Boivin: ibid.).
Proud of his crime, an Amazonian head hunter displays his prey. “Sad tropics!”
Levi-Strauss’s False Affirmation - The Jivaros and the “Txantxa”
This supposed discretion, in addition to being deeply shocking, is false. The Jivaros, who inhabit the Andean valleys of the area of Ecuador on the banks of tributaries of the Upper Amazon, are a people of polygamous warriors whose women have the status of slaves. When they cut off a victim’s head to reduce it, they perform an orgy that lasts several days. To our disgust, we transcribe the unfolding of this ceremony so there are no doubts about the horrors we are talking about.
“They pursue two main goals: taking revenge and acquiring trophy heads…. They besiege villages at night, burn the houses and attack the adversary when he runs away. If they defeat him, they cut off his head, with which they will later acquire fame among their folks.”
The victorious warrior, with the head impaled on his spear, looks for a suitable place where he prepares a fire. “While waiting for the preparation to boil, he takes the head, carefully cuts the skin from the cervix to the vertex, separating it … so that it is not deformed; he removes the bones and viscera and introduces the preparation into it. …. Then he resews the skin and fills it … until the head acquires the size of an orange … the lips are closed by making small holes … and then sewing them … the holes in the nose are plugged with cotton.”
Meanwhile, the warrior remains fasting until the party is celebrated.
“While the man prepares the head, the women of his ‘jivaria’ adorn the house where the party will be held … and prepare the chicha, which will run nonstop. Once everything is ready, the guests are summoned.
“…With his best suits and adornments, the shaman sits in the center of the house and waits for the hero who carries the txantxa to arrive.” He has prepared three vessels with different liquids. “He pours the txantxa into … three containers … and the liquid into the warrior’s throat until it overflows through his nose. In this way, the same liquid that has served to purify the head cleanses him of any fault…” Then “…the warrior adorns the txantxa with feathers and beads and hangs it in the center of the house. The shaman gives a speech, extolling the virtues of the winner, and then a parade is organized … Then the real party begins, reserved exclusively for adults. Women will serve drinks and meals and take an active part in them; these parties usually last about five days and end in real orgies” (Panyella et al.: I, 232-4).
The author of the story was more fortunate than an American explorer who disappeared in the jungle, whose face his wife recognized in a txantxa.
Diffusers of Horror
Levi-Strauss goes even further. A true promoter of “savage thinking” (title of one of his books), in total violation of the principle of non-contradiction and the most basic professional honesty, he equates anthropophagy with its moral condemnation on the aberrant foundation that both suppose a belief in the resurrection. Boivin writes, “These are convictions [against anthropophagy] are of the same nature as those on behalf of which [the Indians practice] ritual consummation, which we have no reasons to prefer” (82).
Claude Lévi-Strauss, a radical agent of regression to the worst barbarism
He closes these statements by saying that dissection cabinets of modern society are worse than cannibalism because they do not respect the deceased. As if it were the same to perform a medical practice to cure the living, and to kill in order to eat the victim’s remains!
He puts himself in the place of cannibals and says they would look at us with horror for punishing criminals, “individuals possessing fearsome forces,” instead of neutralizing and harnessing their forces by eating them.
In the Aztec world, tens of thousands of unfortunate natives, previously arrested and fattened (as Bernal Diaz del Castillo refers), were eaten in horrifying feasts to honor the serpent deity.
Significantly the Virgin of Guadalupe (whose miraculous tilma was attacked even with bombs), appeared as “Cuatlaxupeh,” “the one that crushes the serpent…”
The theories of this influential structuralist ethnologist are tantamount to a total inversion of values, to the world as seen by a madman.
However, he is no madman but a promoter of the worst kind of collective dementia, which is assumed voluntarily by convincing oneself of an absurdity. To this has led the revolutionary process that began with the rebellion of Luther and the 16th century cultural revolution against the Law of God; it was strongly accentuated by the French Revolution, which destroyed social laws, and now threatens to plunge the world into complete collapse by destroying the laws of reason based on a Marxist, structuralist and indigenist logic.
The morals of the bloody Aztecs were "more honest" than that of civilized peoples
A faithful disciple of Levi-Strauss, Professor Magrassi unabashedly holds that “… the ethics and morals of so-called ‘primitives’ were or are more honest, loyal and coherent than the obvious contradictions found in what most conspicuous and supposedly ‘civilized’ persons think, say and do” (oc: 187).
“Precisely some of the issues that have most scandalized the ‘civilized’, honestly or interestedly, about some of those whom they called ‘primitive’ have been ‘anthropophagy’, ‘headhunting’, ‘human sacrifices’.”
Note here the destructive tactic of questioning the meaning of words by means of quotation marks. The justification begins: “But whether or not these (anthropophagy, etc.) … are or were real or symbolic (sic!), they usually reflect the deep religious beliefs that permeate the totality of their way of being…”
“… As for similar tortures and murders by the ‘civilized’ … they would appear in opposition to what they hold and proclaim” (ibid.).
It is always the same scheme: any monstrosity committed by savages is forgivable, and “civilized” people are always worse.
Strauss has the gall of praising the Aztecs, “creators of one of the most sophisticated Mesoamerican civilizations (‘superior’ to their European contemporaries in urbanization and many other aspects, according to the chroniclers of their conquest)…”
Here, the axiom that all cultures are the same is no longer true. If they are pagan and barbarously bloody people like the Aztecs, they are creators of “one of the most sophisticated civilizations.”
To claim that it was superior “to its European contemporaries,” Strauss cites the testimony of chroniclers whose circumstantial stories qualify elsewhere as “prejudiced ethnocentric dump” (Magrassi: 82). On the other hand, between recognizing the poise of Aztec cities and affirming that their civilization is superior to European Christian civilization there is a huge stretch that Magrassi alone can cover in his earnest desires.
Let us continue with this “scientific” piece:
These Mexicans or Aztecs “… better known for their ‘bloody religion’, fervently believed that with the blood of volunteers … who offered themselves to be sacrificed, or friends defeated in intertribal ‘floral games’ held for that purpose, or enemies loyally defeated in war, they kept the Sun (note the capital letter) present by reappearing daily, a terrible and harsh obligation they assumed in the name and to the benefit of all humanity.
So instead of cruel eaters of the flesh of “loyally defeated” enemies, they were responsible and hard-working fulfillers of a “terrible and harsh obligation” “in the name and to the benefit of all humanity.” To what criminal distortions this “science” can give rise!
Adamson Hoebel, another exponent of the current
As it could not be otherwise, whitewashing the genocidal policy of the Aztecs requires demonizing civilized peoples in the most incredible way:
“The Aztecs fought to take prisoners; the Europeans fought to kill, baptizing only the survivors. The essential difference … is that the former wage war to obtain victims for sacrifices but never try to impose their beliefs on others through wars” (Magrassi, citing E. Adamson Hoebel, 1966; o.c.:188).
Anthropologist Magrassi, defender of bloody Aztec rituals and of the idea that man is an animal no better than others, who for years was a professor at Catholic universities UCA and Salvador, in Buenos Aires
This is so illogical and monstrous that it almost borders on diabolic. How can such professionals become chaired professors in Catholic universities?
All this is but a symptom of one of the most serious and painful elements of the current situation, which we only mention because it escapes from the central theme: the internal crisis of the Holy Catholic Church, which the great Pontiff St. Pius X confronted with the Encyclical Pascendi. In it, he denounced and condemned the Modernists as the worst enemies the Church had ever had, “for they plot her ruin from within.” In recent times, the then Cardinal Ratzinger also relied on this historical document to prepare the condemnation of Liberation Theology (see his “Instruction on some aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation,” approved by H.H. John Paul II).
Faced with such repeated claims by leading exponents of revolutionary anthropology, the reader will wonder if we are witnessing isolated outbursts or a consistent school of thought similar to an hallucinating, savage ritual…