I recently watched Ken Burn’s documentary on Prohibition, and somewhere between the story of Carrie Nation and George Remus I realized something about the modern gun control debate: The pro-gun control side is acting on cultural sensibilities expressed as moralistic outrage. How you feel about guns is self-evidently related to the culture that you grew up in, with the typical Southerner or rural American seeing a gun as another everyday household object, while the city dwelling northerner seems to view them more as a dangerous weapon usually owned only by thugs and drug dealers. To a rural Southerner a shotgun leaned up against a corner is no more noteworthy than a blender sitting on a counter-top.
The Huffington Post recently posted this hilariously unironic piece on the perils of “Original Racism.” In 5 Ways White Feminists Can Address Our Own Racism the author stumbles over some seriously stupid points, such as using “feminist powers” to detect racism. But more essentially, the entire premise is directly based on the concept of Original Sin. To better display this effect, simply change entries regarding “racism” to “sin/sinfulness”
Here’s an example:
It’s currently in vogue for progressives to steal certain tools from the philosophy of existentialism and attempt to wield them clumsily at political adversaries. Whether or not leftists are aware of this, many of their rhetorical devices are ripped straight out of a vastly more nuanced and cerebral playbook, only to be applied in the most half-assed, amateur fashion possible. Let’s begin examining some of the most popular tropes and idioms mechanically regurgitated by these children.
“That’s just a social construct!” the liberal will breathlessly exclaim, as if he had just uttered the most groundshaking revelation ever issued from a human mouth. Anyone who’s even so much as stumbled into the philosophy section of Barnes and Noble by accident will find this kind of statement tirelessly redundant and overly obvious. Aren’t all concepts “social constructs?”
(I would’ve attended to this sooner, but at the time I was quite preoccupied with Life Beyond The Keyboard.)
To begin with I think the former author is conflating some concepts and muddying the waters with a few terms here. To believe in the existence of a doorknob in your hand is quite different than believing in the existence of a supernatural God that sent His Only Begotten Son to die for your sins. The human mind doesn’t regard the abstractness of metaphysics the same way it processes the material “reality” of physical objects.
This is the really interesting bit though:
“People think in terms of the supernatural, humans are fundamentally and inevitably religious creatures.
The return to totem and supernatural worship occurs because to consistently worship yourself above all else is to actively oppose all other concepts and beings in reality, to be incapable of having any real place in a human society.”
Occasionally I wander over to Center For a Stateless Society, which operates under the tag line “Left Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center.” Aside from the mostly harmless pontifications of the relatively boring and uninspiring writer Kevin Carson, C4SS has proven to be more notable for attracting the most inane critical theory drivel imaginable from various misfits and miscellaneous social pariahs.
Some of the choicer morsels include the following:
Women experience misogyny in their day to day lives. Many individual women know things about sexual harassment, casual sexism, and a wide range of other gender issues that I will never know, because I am not a woman, and I do not experience them. Recognizing that this distributed knowledge exists has consequences. It means that I should not dismiss women’s experiences of sexism or presume I know more about sexism than they. It means that within the realm of feminist activism, I should not always have as important a decision making role as the women who actually experience the oppression caused by patriarchy. In other words, acknowledging distributed knowledge leads me to “check my privilege.”
There is a tendency for group thinkers to apply guilt by association to their opposites. Atheists revile conservatism for being associated with Christians, while the new alternative right tends to glorify Christianity for the same exact reason. They’re both wrong. While Christianity does echo some fairly bland and uncontroversial sentiments about the role of women and submitting to authority, the Biblical focus has always been on salvation and the afterlife. The attempt to scaffold some sort of elitist authoritarian premise onto this faith is a pitifully inept ad hoc modification.
The contradiction in the general narrative here is almost as laughable as the scriptural conflict: Most theists will claim that Christianity does not support wars and oppression in its own name and point out that the worst atrocities in recent memory have been committed by atheists like Stalin and Mao. Do the conservatives and neo-authoritarians agree with the premise of the Vulgar Atheists, or can we just admit that humans are naturally prone to violence and conquest with both religious and secular beliefs being secondary to their inherently bloodthirsty dispositions? We do know for a certain fact that the scriptures themselves do not advocate any sort of elitist, meritocratic patrician society however.
The Caucasian ethnic group has long amused itself with creative story telling, a habit forever immortalized by the countless religions, epics, novels and plays put down to paper by creative light skinned humans over the years. The art of the narrative is so ingrained in white culture that virtually any situation, no matter how trivial, becomes a riveting drama in the hands of whites. (Try turning on the television, for example.)
Formerly the white man was emotionally invested in his various Abrahamic religions and pursued all manner of heroic, imminently entertaining conflicts in the name of self validation in the face of God. Unfortunately this show was cancelled because a handful of frumpy atheists thought it was too violent for young audiences. Thankfully, another story had been put down to paper long before the death of God: This one was called “The Struggle Against Tyranny” and it found a very large audience. But after a couple centuries or so of defeating all the Evil Bad Guys, this tale had begun to grow rather stale. After all, one could not very well rail against tyrannical despots while living comfortably in a Democracy™ where the individual himself was theoretically responsible for public policy in some fashion or other. The fact that Democracy™, cast as the most moral system of government ever devised, played the role of hero in the story of The Struggle Against Tyranny further complicated matters.
There is a festering cesspit growing like a post-modernist cancer on the fringes of our crumbling society. This smoldering disease is the concentrated essence of all that is weak, detestable, impotent, and irrational about the human species concentrated into one viral organism of nihilistic decay. I speak to you of the Gender Nihilists.
The Gender Nihilists, through an accident of inferior genetic stock, liberal petite-bourgeois upbringing and entirely too much exposure to radical feminist literature have managed to sodomize themselves with a gender-neutral “phallus” of pure slave morality. To the Gender Nihilist’s delicate and sensitive constitution, the mere existence of generalized “norms” regarding human preferences and interests based on their sexual orientation is oppression. The scientific fact that human beings don’t conform to their insanely naive concept of tabula rasa drives them into a pique of righteous indignation. The merest glimmer of possibility that their non-mainstream sexual orientations and preferences might be seen as a “deviation from the norm” or an “eccentricity” instantly offends, hurts and marginalizes these defective little untermenschen. Why the unmitigated gall of the universe to put them in a position where they might feel inferior to someone!
There is perhaps nothing more detestable and toxic in present day political discourse than the unwarranted arrogance and snarky attitude displayed by conventional liberals thoroughly convinced that their oh so enlightened social views are based on science. Apparently passing high school biology, watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and thumbing various Neil Degrasse Tyson memes on Facebook has lead these intellectual nobodies to believe that they are qualified to speak with authority on topics ranging from biological evolution to the proper application of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly the conclusion they draw from all this scientific expertise is that non-liberal political and social views are unscientific. What a shocker.
The hysterically pathetic irony of this world view is the blatant religiosity of it. Countless debates with “scientific” minded liberals and an examination of their beliefs have made it evident that this system of thought contains a soft, nuggety core of pure theology masquerading as “science” for outside observers. This illusion of intellectual authority is further reinforced by the adoption of a pedestrian form of “scientific atheism” that allows these liberals to fancy themselves as over and above those stupid Creationists. While theist notions of “science” such as intelligent design may be laughable, this paucity of intellectual credence does not work to elevate non-religious science by default. As we will examine, supposedly non-religious science is still warped by confirmation bias emanating from a clearly defined ideology that presupposes certain premises. Unlike most scientific methods of inquiry, liberal scientism starts with certain a priori universal assumptions, akin to religious values for atheistic liberals, which are then “proven” through deductive reasoning rather than inductive science.
What are these assumptions? Why, they are the same old spooks that we have been getting from self-styled progressives for the last century or so.
“The first Kings were Fathers of Families.” – Patriarcha, Sir Robert Filmer (1680)
As the diannihilect swept past for another spiraling lap, what was forgotten became profound once again.
In world of ceaseless and senseless deconstruction, it is both surprising and not surprising that a male’s innate ability to socialize with other humans has been repackaged and mythologized by spurious and slimy men as “game.”
Apparently, being able to talk to a woman without seeming a pathetic child needing mommy’s kiss for his little boo-boo is pivotal towards achieving Man’s biological goal. Apparently a boy must become a Man if he desires the company of a female in any pleasing capacity. Whodathunkit?