Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Modern progressives will hail San Francisco's Hunky Jesus competition as a great triumph of free speech, gay pride, freedom from religion, and a reflection of the "spirit of the community."
It is indeed the epitome of the profoundly basest ideals of progressive nihilism.
It is also another of a long list of trends in progressivism to demean anything that may be sacred to a majority of Americans.
The basic ideal behind queer society and the LGBTQQIAXYZ community, and to a large extent, liberal society in general, is: "If it's basely offensive to Christianity, then it must serve the public good."
And by "public good," progressives really means "that which is generally considered offensive and in poor taste."
Here is the moral of the story: the dogmas of progressives are blatantly offensive to the principles of decency, morality, and virtue. Yet those same dogmas dictate that progressives become insanely offended when challenged to show how such displays really serve the public good.
Progressivism is a philosophy of doublespeak and doublethink, and one that cannot long endure.
It is also antithetical to all that is right and good and decent in the world.
Monday, December 15, 2014
When we look at the recent history of philosophical thought, we group different periods by common ideas: Kantian, Post-Kantian, Humanist, Nihilist, Existentialist, Pragmatist, Modernist, Post-modernist. Current philosophy suggests that we now live in a post-thinking age.
Instead of thinking, we have entered an age where mob rule is preferred over rule of law. We are taught to do what feels good, rather than to restrain ourselves with a few rules of polite society. We are told that nothing is our fault, but the fault of an oppressive system imposed by people long dead. We are encouraged to express our basest desires, as if lust and desire were the most defining characteristics of human existence.
When President Obama, to suit his identity politics, rewrote federal immigration law, he taught us that feeling good about accepting illegal immigrants is more important than the damage to the rule of law.
When the "best minds" within our government ignore the blatant danger of destabilizing the Mideast, allowing ISIL to grow unchecked, and rely on a few remote-controlled bombing raids to protect the US interests, we stand back in awe that such tactics are even considered.
When we view riots and looting in the streets of Ferguson, fomented by people angered by injustice where there was none, we know that no thinking is involved. We only see uncontrolled rage at formless "oppression" and the chance to grab a free television. Facts and common sense don't matter to people stirred up with indignation over perceived injustice.
When politicians promise one thing, then vote completely opposite to their supposed principles, we shrug our shoulders and ask: "Did we expect any differently?" Worse, we then reelect the same politicians over and over, shrugging our shoulders after each election.
When we fork out ever increasing amounts to fund a college education, only to discover faculty and administration who would rather indoctrinate students instead of teach them, we pay for the privilege to turn off our brains.
This last example within the very institutions that are supposed to encourage thinking, is the worst offender of all. How can we as a people survive, when our educational systems are designed to promote the philosophy that thinking for ourselves is morally wrong or unnecessary? Universities have become centers of propaganda, rather than places of thinking and learning. As such, they are no better than the madrassahs of Pakistan that train young Muslims to be evil terrorists.
Behind the post-thinking philosophy is a political ideology that drives away rational thought, even condemns it, as anti-establishment. Our current government is an oligarchy, based on the ideology that politicians know best what is good for the people, and what is good for the people is a government that runs all aspects of our individual lives.
We call that kind of government authoritarian.
When a very few people take charge, or when one individual takes control of the whole, we call that kind of government totalitarian.
All indicators within our government point to a political ideology based on the principle that thinking people are dangerous to the regime.
Our government now grows and thrives because we, the people, have given up thinking. We have been indoctrinated to "feel" rather than to think. To this end, modern politics takes avery opportunity to control the message, in no small part by federalizing schools and universities.
Over the years, we have witnessed the regression of thought, in favor of an ideology based on socialist principles which deny individuals the capacity and education to think for themselves. This is the basis of liberal dogma, to turn off thinking by supplanting it with socialist propaganda.
As Joseph Goebbels once put it: "It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise."
Goebbels' thought has already been spectacularly disproven with the end of World War II. Even German military minds during the height of Goebbels' career understood the paucity of his thought. For example, Otto Ohlendorn, an SS Gruppenführer debunked Goebbels: "I always opposed Goebbels. I always tried to have people educated on a broad basis, while Goebbels tried to supply them with knowledge for the moment. Goebbels considered humans as objects to be used for political purposes - for the moment."
Isn't that what presidents and Congress for the past 20 or 30 years have been doing to the American people - considering humans as objects to be used for political purposes? Sure, we can argue that today's US politicians are nowhere in the league of a Goebbels, or a Stalin, or a Mao. I agree.
Yet we are setting the stage for such men to come into power, to overthrow the rule of law, to break with the US Constitution, to ignore "we the people of the United States," to create an authoritarian government.
As we sit back and allow such men to rule over us, the victory over thinking for ourselves will be complete.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Greg Lukianoff is a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat. He is also an attorney for FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). FIRE is a not-for-profit organization that supports individuals in legal battles against overbearing and unconstitutional university speech codes. (Check out the group here.) He has also written the best book exposing the war against free speech taking place on university campuses across the US.
From university professors summarily dismissed, to student expulsion, to a rape accusation culture, to enforced "sensitivity" training, Lukianoff covers case after case of free speech violations orchestrated by the very system that should best embrace freedom of speech - the university.
What first struck me about the book was Lukianoff's ability to transcend his liberal roots to embrace one of the basic principles of the founding of the US - free speech. Unlike many liberals, he understands that speech must be protected for everyone, not just for the few who happen to be in power. His book cuts right to the heart of the problem with liberal university speech codes that limit and stifle, rather than encourage discourse and measured argument on campus.
Having come under fire myself for daring to have an opinion that some of my students found offensive (namely that same sex marriage harms the institution of marriage), I experienced the same problems that many conservatives have suffered within the university system. Even after all these years, I still write under the name "Euripides" on one hand, because I've created something of a "Euripides brand," but also so that I incur less risk to me and my family for actively expressing views that are unpopular within the liberalized school system.
Lukianoff's book opened my eyes to the main cause of outlandish and overreaching "speech codes" at universities - the explosion of administration on nearly every campus in the country. At the time the book was written, administration outnumbered faculty across the nation. A lot of the new administration has the "responsibility" to implement prevalent ideals of the leftist utopian society, free from any conflict whatsoever (as long as everyone agrees with the administration's view).
If you've not picked up Lukianoff's book, I recommend it as a lucid argument against the trend of modern universities. It will open your eyes to the deep, pervasive problems that you, or your children will face when confronted with trying to gain an education at one of these institutions for "higher" learning.
The book is depressing in many ways, not the least of which is its confirmation that universities, by and large, suppress critical thinking instead of encouraging it. Whenever conservatives face off against liberals, we must acknowledge that much of today's fuzzy thinking and polarized conversations stem from a failing university system that has told its students what to think, instead of how to think.
Lukianoff's book is a good starting place to understand that free speech is at the core of rational thought and critical thinking. It is imperative that today's students understand Lukianoff's thesis in order to become better educated, rather than becoming a mindless drone of some university administrator's dream of utopia.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
I'm curious about your reaction to this latest "trend" in feminist expression - armpit hair coloring. You know, as I stand in front of the ten thousandth class full of liberalized students in my US History class, I find that year by year the "fashion" to mangle and deface the human body into some monstrosity continues unabated.
First came the tats, with women sporting the ever popular tramp stamp. Then the tats got larger and more elaborate, covering shoulders, arms, legs, necks, backs, and some faces.
At nearly the same time piercings started wandering in rows up the ears, across the eyebrows, down the nose, through the lip, and into the tongue. You've never lived until you watch the D-average student in the third row incessantly shove an inch-long steel rod back and forth through the middle of his tongue.
If any of my students have pierced nipples, I don't care to find out.
Then came the disfigurement of gauges to stretch the earlobes. Every student who sports such gauges always make me break out into song: either "Do Your Ears Hang Low" or "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot."
Which brings me back to my original question: What do you all think? Is the next trend in dyed armpits the best way for women to express their independence and empowerment?
While I have yet to encounter a student with dyed armpit hair, I still shudder every time I stand in front of a new class of students. What will be the final result of this endless expression of "individuality" and "empowerment?"
Monday, December 1, 2014
Modern liberalism is easy to understand, but difficult to fathom. Why do people actually believe in its doctrines? Where will those doctrines lead?
I've written several blogs in the past that explain why the liberal left is so darned annoying. Yet, in my personal pursuit of knowledge, it always seems like a good idea to revisit a topic to explore something I may have missed.
After searching through another several thousand pages of liberal books outlining its ideals and arguments, I've come to the same conclusions about liberalism that I've held all along. Modern liberalism is crap. Its ideals, while seductive and pleasing to hear, cannot possible bring about a better world. It is dreck. It is garbage. It is bantha poodoo.
The basic problem with modern liberalism, as I've mentioned before, is its double standard. Liberalism holds one ideal as valid, while rejecting that ideal when others practice it. For example, modern liberalism can laud black rights on the one hand while fomenting the worst kind of racial division in Ferguson. It can uphold the values of the most sexually deviant while condemning anyone who is offended by them. It can praise a woman who rips an unborn baby from her uterus, and despise strong and successful women because they belong the "wrong" political party.
This double standard combines with a belief system that has no anchor, and therefore, has no possibility of producing a moral system. Sure, individual liberals can be moral creatures, but the philosophy as a whole stands on the shifting sands of moral relativism.
We're familiar with these double standards. They are manifested every day, while progressive education inculcates complete acceptance from our children. The seduction of the forbidden has a strong appeal to youth. It has tempted the young since the beginning of history.
I've been struck at how closely the ideas from a book, compiled 2300 plus years ago, describes the appeal of liberal dogmas, and also describes its dangers.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent. Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust.I've rarely written or argued from religious texts for several reasons. I'm not about to do so here. Let's take this verse, not as a religious directive, but as a social indictment against a people who had rejected common sense and common decency as a basis for their nation.
A few examples from a modern context will show that these words still have power.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil:
There is nothing so self-evident and long-lasting as the words penned by Thomas Jefferson, declaring the truth that all humans are granted the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While we can equivocate on what the pursuit of happiness means, the right to life seems pretty clear cut.
That modern liberalism can so callously throw away this right of millions of the unborn, under the guise of "a woman's right to choose," stretches and breaks the fundamental right we should recognize among all humans. To deny such rights to the innocent is evil.
Even worse, in order to obfuscate the inherent evil behind abortion, long arguments are concocted (like champions at mixing drinks) with the sole intent of hiding the killing of the unborn behind a thin veneer of philosophical debate.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight:
President Obama recently broke the mold on executive orders by breaking the law in order to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the US. Obama's presidency has been characterized by his willingness to rewrite law in his own image, while ignoring laws he disagrees with. The end result is a nation that no longer respects law as its foundation and looks to those in power to "fix things."
The problem with Obama here is one of pure hubris - the idea that he knows better than the American people of what is good for us. In large ways and small, those who are wise in their own eyes have degraded the rule of law and the republic itself to create an oligarchy, where the few rule over the many. Federal judges now with impunity overturn laws with which they disagree. The US Attorney General feels free to ignore standing law or even to incite riots.
Even if changes from politicians come from a misplaced desire to do good or to fix problems, what each of these individuals expresses is the idea that one individual is more intelligent and capable than the entire American people. To founders of the US, such as John Adams, such was the evil of even a mild dictator such as King George.
Woe to those who...acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent:
Can there be a better example of this particular evil than those who incited men to riot and loot in the streets of Ferguson after a grand jury didn't indict Darren Wilson for doing what he was trained to do? Liberal dogma would throw the rule of law out the window for mere political advantage.
Can we imagine a worse fate for the ideals that created America than to see them dashed to the ground under the auspices of "fairness," or "equality?" How ironic our situation is, that liberalism wields these ideals as a weapon, all the while denying their virtue and power.
Can such a political system work for long? I have to come to the conclusion that modern liberalism cannot be sustained and will decay as its flowers blow away like dust. Unfortunately, it will do so only after doing great damage to the structure and institutions of the United States.