Monday, April 4, 2011

Polemic: the Culture War in Under 140 Positions

A recent discourse in 140 miniblog positions on the peculiarities of the world we live in, resulted in a challenge from an unknown entity in the Twitter universe of what turned out to be a postmodern, self-confessed 'scientist'. His alma mater or field of work remains unknown to this day, but his bio sports such ethical pursuits as animal rights, humanism, consciousness research, evolution, cosmology, agnosticism, vegetar., portuguese coffee, science, and writing.

The first tweet pressed upon me the blessings of the state and of pomo dogma in regard of  morality and ethics. Didn't I know that religion has no monopoly on morality, and was I not aware that such tenets are simply subjective group conventions - a consensus on the norm if you will - and that the state as a neutral arbiter should put a ban on all religious manifestations and expunge it from the public domain? A diatribe on how  religion usurped morality from the societal domain ensued (the divorce between the secular and the sacred has been at least since Plato's time).

But here comes the full view on the Leftist mindset in its full, dictatorial glory: "It's the duty of lawmakers to regulate the behavior of people" (which is a marked deterioration on the view that it's the duty of politicians to offer hope and consolation). This point of view explains why so many - primarily in the Obama administration - are meisters in public manipulation at the perceptional level (e.g. Cass Sunstein and his Nudge). In this flat, two dimensional world this is the main level of consciousness (for a proper understanding read also "The O Team: Mental Babies With Razors").

"In democracies the average morality (to be understood as something akin to etiquette) is reflected in the law" (which is presumably why the US Constitution is a living and breathing document): truth has made place for fleeting 'norm' or 'consensus'. E.g. if the consensus has it, that children can have sex from the age of 12, then so be it. Once the law says it's okay, hey presto, having sex with children as of the age of 12 is no longer immoral. Here we have in a word, why 'consensus' is taking such a central place in the relativist narrative: it is the moral arbiter. In dictatorships the tyrant dictates law which equals morality: Corporal Hitler would have been proud!

Since years of rubbing shoulders with relativists and subjectivists has as yet to result in any fruitful interaction - and isn't likely to yield any in the foreseeable future - I tried to shake the challenger off with a few generalities about time constraints. As said, fruitless. Their dogma and self-righteousness compels them to attack objective thinkers whenever and wherever they may find them. More importantly, what really set him off were my claims in defense of Christian ethics against the onslaughts of n oxymoron: a liberal, moral dictatorship. That could not stand!

Another exposé on the nature of morality as a group subjectivity, hit my In Box the next day, pressing upon me what is in essence the fascist narrative of polylogism. It enabled Nazi theory to see the fate of the German people as separate from other nations. But in the present case it's religious groups that may engage in whatever backward and appalling practice their faith may proscribe, as long as they don't hurt other people outside their tribe, or God forbid, animals. Apart of that, religions should have no longer have 'privileges' other than, say filatellist associations or boy scouts.

And was I aware, that apes and primates are actually very moral animals? And how could I say, that free will is at its root?! Free will is but an illusion in which humans are inherently caught up and is as futile as my claim that morality is about a choice between good and evil! I should know that  morality consists in the conscience ... (eh?) And since his morality isn't mine, how dare I claim my morality - what advances life is good, what abrogates it is bad - is objective! Death can be very beneficial to those suffering from it (life, that is).

Subjectivists live in a universe of their own making - quite literally. They are the masters of that universe but everyone else is a Narcissist! There's nothing you can tell them that makes any sense. See, they aren't seekers of truth, but ideologues with an agenda who interprete the world as it fits their narrative.

Free will must be torn out by the root, otherwise there won't be any victims fueling their dialectic world: a place propelled progressively forward by the struggle between the oppressors and their inequal victim groups (vintage Hegel and Marx, the essence of progressivism).

The state must usurp the place of God at the center of the universe. If the Government is the moral arbiter between unequal groups that are forever at each others throats, it renders them like children, for always dependent on the Government for goodies and hope of peace.

Animals on the other hand, must be fitted with a sense of morality if they are to claim any rights! Since in this approach morality is 'social convention', I suppose you could call it 'morality' of sorts. At least admits in animals this doesn't involve a conscious choice. Expect apes on trial next, for the murder of smaller animals! Just like in the Middle Ages when a pig was famously put on trial.

Truth and reality do not exist. Good and evil do not exist. The lie does not exist. There's just fleeting, temporary perception. Morality is state-mediated consensus.

Through the falsehoods at the root of their thinking, the result is ever the opposite of what they claim to achieve. "We love culture so much", one shrieked once, "that we think retaining ones culture should be a human right!" And they proceeded to throw them in the great multicultural witch's cauldron, and out came Balkan balls and sectarian goulash!

Higher education now produces no specimen of humanity, other than the one whose reality we just peeked into. The divide between the two philosophies on the nature of the universe and human thought is now so huge and so fundamental, that it's hard to think of one subject where the two aren't at the very opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. If anything, the gap is widening ever further.

The subjective side has now amassed all ingredients the fascists and National Socialists had at their disposal, save a sense of personal victimhood and a culture of militarism: pragmatism, group subjectivism (polylogism), passion and emotions as cognitive tools (anti reason), collectivism, a denial of truth and objective reality, the negation of good and evil, law equals morality, anti capitalism and anti individualism, and a end-justifies-the-means mindset.

In "The New Totalitarianism That Dares Not Speak it's Name" we introduced Professor Ernest Sternberg's publication, "Purifying the World: What the New Radical Ideology Stands For" into the mix of arguments. It is an investigation into the merging of Leftism and Islam. Sternberg explains that the Left has largely refrained from serious violence because they see their religious terrorist comrades as proxies. The target is evidently Western cultureas a whole, with the United States and Israel as the primary targets.

The onslaught continues.


Obama has said Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization for killing innocent civilians racist, because they do not advance the careers of blacks in the ranks of the terrorist organization. Is it any wonder we're dog's breakfast! Morality, anyone?