The good thing about choosing to directly confront the secular, atheist orthodoxy is that it is an unchanging series of misrepresentations and lies that started many decade ago, so the refutation of it is pretty much the same series of truths that can be repeated but which the atheists can never answer. Here is a passage from one of the times I stated them.
I have come to suspect that unless a society is primarily influenced by some absolute metaphysical holding that is the equivalent to the egalitarian economic and justice teachings founded in the Mosaic Law and the teachings of the Jewish prophets, they will not either achieve or sustain democracy. I don't think anything but a holding that equality is the endowment of our Creator will be sufficient to overcome the depravity of natural selfishness. Any society in which a majority of people do not have that sense which governs their choices and actions will be an oppressive, unequal society. What people think leads to what they do and what they do is the substance of which a society and its character are made. The extent to which people can deny or wiggle out of or ignore that inequality is wrong, that it is evil, that to participate in it is a sin which produces pain and disaster is the extent to which egalitarian democracy is made impossible or is destroyed. I think that is the reason we are losing everything gained in the past two-hundred years in the United States and reverting to the country which produced the evils that liberalism exists to abolish and stop.
The proposed atheist replacements of morality, such as the current one based on an idiotic and self-contradicting evolution of morals under natural selection exacerbates instead of inhibits assumptions of inequality and all of the evils that inequality gives birth to. The notion that natural selection, BASED ENTIRELY IN NOTIONS OF INEQUALITY could be turned around to create equality is proof that you have to be wiling to be dishonest to try to replace morality with that. The earliest proponents of natural selection were notable for being opposed to the idea that all people were equal, using natural selection to argue for inequality and advocating the "goodness" of even the most obviously evil practices arising from that. I have mentioned their almost immediate assertions for the benefits of infanticide, murder of those deemed unfit, allowing them to starve and die of disease and everything up to and including imperialist genocide. All of which I've documented in the very words of those who invented natural selection. And the same is true for any other atheist or secular replacement for the Jewish conception of morality contained in The Law and the prophets. There are things that could be cited, such as the morality taught by The Buddha, though it presupposes that in any generation there will be inequality as people and other beings work out their fate under karmic forces. The same is true for various Hindu schools of thought. While, under some of Buddhism and Hinduism there is a very high degree of morality asserted, unless there is also a call for equality within every generation then those will not produce a durable and truly egalitarian democratic government. Such a government begins as an ideal which we will find it almost impossible to even approximate and even coming to that approximation will take enormous self-denial and self-restraint, of people doing what they would rather not do, of sacrificing their own self-interest when they could, easily, treat other people as they would not want to be treated in both small and large ways. I think such an effort to achieve what can be takes enormous effort and anything that hampers it will be an enormous danger to it.
If there is any other proposal for producing the equivalent of the Jewish-Christian basis for egalitarian democracy, I'd very much like to know it and would support its morality as equal to it. I suspect that it is quite possible to do so under Islam though I am not a scholar of Islam to any great extent. Some writers calling for a society governed by the ideal equality of conduct of those making the Hajj seem to me to be calling for something like that. Any previous faith that I had that that could be done in secular and non-theistic terms is dead.
My former faith in such stuff didn't ever include taking Michel Foucault seriously, I have never thought he was much of anything but an intelligent but essentially dishonest peddler of bull shit. I seem to recall reading that, after a debate with him, Noam Chomsky seemed to be rather astonished at how utterly amoral he was, which is characteristic of so much of the secular, atheist left, at bottom. It accounts for how they can talk about the lives of millions of people in terms that reduce them to a natural resource to manage and channel instead of the possessors of real, durable, rights which any person and the government must treat as important and, in fact, inalienable.
You can read the exchange that flowed from my dissing one of the gods of atheism, Monsieur Arouet, who, I have to confess, I always did think was a bit of a fat-head, too. When I read his racism, his antisemitism, it didn't come as anything like a shock to me. But, then, I'd read him, some in the original, some in translation. It wasn't through him that I came to distrust the kind of talk about people that turned, in the fullness of secular, atheist academic discourse into the sociological transformation of human beings into resources to pin down in description and managed but, looking back, that's the direct inspiration of much of it. It is entirely compatible with 19th century racism and eugenics and, in the fullness of time, the mass extermination of groups based on their economic utility or lack of it and the national efficiency of the state. Marx and Engels spoke that same language, translated. So did the Nazis and the Stalinists and Maoists.
It is notable, in the contexts of other things I've posted here, that Foucault died as a result of his indulgence in casual, anonymous sex in the gay sex clubs. Some of the people who knew him speculated it was during his period of indulging in and promoting sado-masochism as found in the San Francisco bay area, even into the period when anonymous, casual sex had already, scientifically, been identified as the likely transmission of AIDS. What is to be made of someone whose intellectualism is loosely enough defined to include that kind of grotesquely anti-scientific and irresponsible violation of rights of other people. AIDS was already known and had been suspected even longer, of being spread through sexual promiscuity even as so many even established intellectuals were promoting and praising it as some kind of manifestation of liberty. Though, in the case of Foucault, sado-masochism is a negation of the liberty of the weaker as it creates a privilege for the stronger over the mentally ill. It is a total negation of equality and love, even that degraded expression of it called "fraternity". And such total crap as Foucault wrote on the topic of sex, including the promotion of his own, homicidal and suicidal practices, is taught in universities and considered to be some kind of intellectual product worthy of promotion. There is absolutely nothing liberal about that, it is fascist decadence.
No comments:
Post a Comment