Wednesday, October 10, 2007

2015: The Triumph of Evil or "What Happened?!"

These are momentous times. I fear there will be a point in the foreseeable future - say 2015 - that we'll ask ourselves, "how could we've let this happen, again!". My fear isn't based on phobia (of whatever variety), or on a vague gut feeling, female intuition or on obsessively reading the papers. It is not even based on historical parallels. Rather, my fears are the result of ice cold reasoning and analysis of the essentials.

This blog discusses with some intensity the intricacies of Subjectivism and its fallacies as espoused by the various branches of the Left over the centuries - including Right wing Socialism - and how these ideologies developed out of the Counter-Enlightenment movement started by Rousseau.

No matter what guise the particular variety takes, the end result is always the same: repression, followed by carnage and tragedy, born out of good intentions towards the common good. And if present developments on the world stage aren't deceiving us, the fallacy they stubbornly hang on to may come to cost us dearly once again. Since the wars of the last centuries the stakes are up and the technical means for industrial scale genocide have hugely improved.

The central philosophical con trick of all Collectivist thought (meaning: the opposite of individualism, covering the far Right (negligible in numbers), and first and foremost all of the Left of the political spectrum) is perpetrated in order to accommodate the lie, so that the ideology may survive yet another generation: it is the denial of Reality and with it, the rejection of right and wrong, good and bad.

This amorality has become a problem of Biblical proportions as adherents because of it, do not recognize Evil, even if it bit them in the behind. And because of the Left's unwillingness to concede defeat of their bankrupt ideology, the Left is also incapable of fighting Evil.

Psychologist/blogger Dr Sanity in a brilliant post "Strange Love: How they learnt to stop worrying and love the Iranian Bomb" described it like this: "Recent articles in the MSM (see here and here) suggest that the left is gearing up for an all out assault on the possibility of war with Iran. They intend to do this by using the talking point that "they can live with a nuclear Iran." ... In fact, we can translate (that) into "learning to live without Israel and the Jews". Because that is what the practical consequence of this leftist line of reasoning amounts to."

The doctor is as incisive as ever! But as the tally at present stands at 110 million victims for the whole of Counter-Enlightenment philosophies, who's to blink at a genocide more or less if it's done in the name of universal common good?! An amoral act of cowardice is better than having to fight any war, however morally justified, right?

Anybody who'd take the trouble of objectively thinking about the proposition before us, throwing momentarily aside psychopathology and the habitual ideological blinkers, would have to admit that such are the consequences of letting Iran off the nuclear hook.

But because of the central lie at the base of the ideology, they are unable to look at any given situation with anything remotely resembling objectivity. It enables them to maintain the ideology, but at the price of amorality and consequently, a blind spot for Evil.

The declaration in Subjectivist circles that God is dead has been epitomised by the proto Nazi philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. After World War II the Left have personified Adolf Hitler as the Horned One himself, thus creating a straw man for Evil. With Hitler's demise in the Berlin bunker, Evil died with him. As a result, the Leftist dogma has become that every issue can be resolved by talk and diplomacy.

The danger of this undertaking is that they run the risk of becoming Evil themselves. Their unwillingness to even consider their error, means risking the lives of another 100 million human beings. This is no political game, or a feeble discussion about up-tight morality. Existential issues are at stake, to put it mildly.

Recently re-reading some of the works of writer C.S. Lewis I stumbled upon 'Miracles' in which he refutes the Subjectivist fallacy by yet other means than set out in the PMF. In 'Miracles' Lewis is proving why - what at the time were termed Naturalists (or Materialists, Darwinians, atheists) - cannot maintain their faith in the human capacity for reason, and simultaneously assert an evolution process through natural selection.

Today's Postmodern Left have solved the issue by saying goodbye to Truth altogether, but in Lewis' time, in the evolutionary's book - absent a Designer - there could not considered to be such a thing as Truth prior to the event of thinkers, who could make the moral distinction between right and wrong.

This is the idea of Subjectivism in its full glory or, 'if I die overnight, will the sun still be rising tomorrow?', or 'if planet Earth is destroyed by an attack of giant squirrels from outer space and no human is left, this cannot be considered an immoral act (as only humans can say that it is).

Naturalists explain the world in terms of an endless chain of Cause and Effect. >>> The entire article is published on "Politeia".

"Violence cannot exist in and of itself.
It is invariably interlinked with the Lie."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

1 comment:

Micah Tillman said...

I'm liking this post! Thanks.

I think it would be better to label Nietzsche as something other than "proto Nazi" (he hated antisemites, among whom was his sister [the sister who compiled "The Will to Power," which I have been told, was the one book of Nietzsche's that Hitler used]) but I think you're totally right about subjectivist philosophy.

Subjectivism (or relativism), I have said elsewhere, is just a democratization of morality to the point where you don't even tally the votes. Rather strange.