The Loss of the Western Mind
In debate after debate I’m sure we’ve all noticed that some people continually recycle the same statements over and over as if those statements represent something more than emotion-laden rhetoric that hasn’t already been factually and logically refuted or otherwise sufficiently responded to. While this is hardly surprising, what has piqued my interest are discussions involving the election of Donald J. Trump and abortion, I suppose because those subjects carry a great deal of emotional weight for many people. I think the reaction to these subjects reveals something extremely interesting and dangerous to society.
I’m not just talking about atheists/materialists here, but people in general. In every single discussion I had with anyone not supporting Trump, their reaction to Trump was not one of cool political discourse, but of outright hate. They hated Trump. However, not a single one of them could give me even a single policy position of the candidate. […]
Similarly, when having a “debate” about abortion, the same emotion-laden polemic is used over and over. Recently, on this blog, some commenters offer supposed “righteous indignation” about how pro-life advocates act (or rather, in their eyes, refuse to act appropriately) in response to what they refer to as a “holocaust” – the mass-murder of the unborn. Others react with emotional, “shaming” and “virtue-signalling” talking points about “reproductive rights” and “patriarchical oppression”. Ignoring the scientific fact that human life is known to begin at conception, they talk about other points of the growth of a human from conception that they personally feel would be better marks for granting human right protections – like where they think the fetus might be self-aware, or feel pain, or upon birth. While birth, unlike the other points, is not a vague marker, it suffers from other, logical problems as far as being the best marker fo application of human rights, rendering it simply an arbitrary point after conception with respect to application of human rights.
Now, what do these rhetorical responses and positions have in common? They are all based on subjective feelings and arbitrary points of factual reference that support those arbitrary feelings. In other words, it is the personal, subjective feeling that grounds many views, not relevant facts, grounded principles and logical examination.
The point of modern argument is not to logically persuade, but to get what you want. As such, emotion is far more useful than logic… especially in a culture where there is no broadly-shared logical standard of reference.
This post-modernist moral relativism renders all “social justice” positions inherently absurd and hypocritical; if I can identify as anything and expect acceptance and tolerance for my position, how then does one justify spewing hate and intolerance for those who self-identify even as racists, misogynists and homophobes? If they can hate Trump, I can hate Clinton. If they can hate patriarchy, I can hate equality. If they can hate homophobes, then by post-modernist moral subjectivism I am certainly entitled to hate homosexuals.
It’s not a question of right and wrong: it’s a question of who has power, and who doesn’t. “Who? Whom?” as Lenin would put it.
And who has power changes with the wind… and, more to the point, to the economic forces at play. Western society is held together solely by old habits of obedience, the love of economic security, and cultural intimidation.
(I don’t think that the threat of State violence is a truly important factor in the West, as of 2017.)
When economic security lies in shreds and the legitimacy of the Right Sort has been destroyed, Western society will disintegrate.
If there are no fundamental principles or relevant facts from we all agree to submit to and from which we agree to draw rational conclusions, all one is left with is the whim of subjective feelings and arbitrarily organized references to support those feelings. What that ends up looking like is reliance upon rhetoric, invective, intimidation and, ultimately, violence. It also ends up looking like what we have on this site – a plethora of people utterly incapable of making a rational argument based upon logical inference derived from principle and relevant fact, ending up in self-conflicting absurdities and hypocrisies.
God, using the tool of Reality, has a way of punishing people who insist on living in self-centred fantasy worlds.
Now, that does not mean that I think that Western society will repent. With the rot bone-deep, it’s far too gone for that. But if you choose not to fear Islam — with the ongoing sterility, bankruptcy, and senility of Secularism, the only real challenger to the unfettered dominance of Jesus Christ and His Law-Word — then the future looks quite good.
I recommend willing to put some muscle behind Christian Reconstruction, as I wish to see the victory of Christ accelerated. Expanding the Kingdom brings glory in the next life… and quite a lot of joy in this world.
Yes, there are prices to be paid: but victory is worth the price.
The Alternative to Christ is Failure and Death
I advise not fearing Islam. It has a tendency to blow apart into factionalism, when there is no external threat, as there is no real law beside “Obey the Prophet” – and what determines the identity of the Prophet is how much military power he can bring to the table.
Couple that with it’s love of the dead past and hatred of everything and anything outside of itself, and Islam is an exercise of violent futility. The only reason why it has a real possibility of taking over Europe is because Secular Europe hates the future and the possibility of change and growth even more than Islam does.
After all, even the most murderous Islamic sects kill around 10,000 people a year or so, about the same number of abortions done in Europe every single day.
When faced with two vicious, perverted, amazingly cruel, Christ-hating, murderous societies, it is reasonable that God would choose to let the less wicked society gain the future… assuming that He does not strike both down to the ground, as is definitely within His rights.
A shame, though, that the slackness of the Church and it’s explicit, pointed, willful refusal to obey Christ and disciple the nations has led to this nasty situation.