Category Archives: morality

“White Privilege”: A Racial Epithet Meant to Destroy the Joy of White People, and Then Destroy Them, Period

The ideology of “white privilege” is an arrantly racist pejorative rooted in the deep and fetid bowels of collectivist metaphysics. It’s not a casual accusation; it’s not merely an empirical social observation; it’s not simply a commentary on Western Democratic sociopolitical hierarchy.  It is a product of despotic ideology which concludes with genocide. Racists who appeal to it should be called out as racists. Those who pretend to denounce bigotry by using it as a political cudgel should be called out as hypocrites and drummed out of power, no matter what color they are.

“White privilege” means, among other wicked things, that whatever joy a white person happens to experience, however he wants to define “joy”, is to be considered an abomination against nature and morality. Any pleasure a white person derives from his existence is a categorical perversion of justice and truth. Concordantly, whatever misery a white person happens to experience, howerever he wants to define “misery”, is a natural virtue and an affirmation of truth. A white person’s misery thus is infinitely, naturally, and necessarily deserved, by the mere fact that the white person exists at all. In other words, the exercise and expression of a white person’s existence, meaning his will, is anathema to nature, and an offense to reality. You may think I’m exaggerating, but I assure you I will barely be scratching the surface of this pernicious political weapon. To value whiteness as “privilege”, and then associate “privilege”, implicitly or explicitly, with the exploitation and destruction of all other races, and then judge all white individuals as being at root an existential function of Whiteness, is NECESSARILY to devalue their individuality, which reduces their existence to that of “Evil Whiteness”, which makes the categorical destruction of white individuals an object moral imperative. And if you think this isn’t true, or couldn’t really happen, or both, take a cursory look at history. EVERY political mass murder in history is rooted in the same metaphysical paradigm. The only difference is found in the semantics. Group labels may change, but the practical application is identical. Take “white” and replace it with “Jew” or “Capitalist” or “Infidel” or “Wog” and you will find the EXACT same philosophy at work. The “progressive left” never, ever seems to progress beyond the guilotine, killing field, or gas chamber.

Following the false and evil metaphysical premise of “white privilege” down its twisted trail of perverted logic, we find, as I mentioned, that any exercise and expression of a white person’s will in ANY capacity—that is, any white person exercising ANY degree of will in serivice to ANY form of self-interest—is considered an object moral atrocity. His own personal benefit and blessing, however he wants to define it, in any measure, is only possible via a perversion of nature and its concomitant moral truth; and this perversion then fundamentally and ultimately proceeds…from what, exactly? From the fact that the white person possesses individual will at all. You see, the very fact that the white person has a root sense of individuality makes him existentially incapable of perceiving and thus experiencing—in and of himself—his COLLECTIVE guilt as a manifestation of his “Evil Whiteness”; he cannot ever truly understand the guilt of his REAL COLLECTIVE identity…that of Whiteness the Enemy of Reality.

This in turn makes it impossible to reason with the white person. Having a sense of Individual Self apart from his collective Whiteness makes him say “irrational” things like “Well, I never owned slaves”; or “I’m not responsible for what white people did in the past”; or “My ancestors died fighting slavery”; or “Blacks are as culpable for slavery as any white person; for every black slave sent to the New World from Sub-Saharan Aftrica was captured by other blacks”; or “the word ‘slave’ is a derivation of the word ‘Slav’, and the Slavs were white’”; or “Muslim nations promoted slavery to an exponentially greater degree than the Christian nations of Europe, and the Muslim version was exponentially more brutal, so why doesn’t the progressive left ever mention that?” Yes, the white person cannot understand his true collective evil because of his sense of individuality, which forms his frame of reference for reality, thereby making his personal reality as through a lens of Perpetual Lying. And this being the case, ALL of his protestations at being judged by his skin color, his cries of injustice and his pleadings for mercy, his supplications for personal exception (“But I have black friends; my WIFE is black”) should be summarily ignored, and consistently so, and he should be compelled by force and feint into his collective white guilt, and his collective racial identity, and just deserts heaped upon him via the power of the State (mass censorship, exploitation, castigation, enslavement, flagellation, and eradication) as an expression of the Truth and Justice of Collectivized Reality.

Of course, this is all just Collectivist Ethics 101; all collectivist ideologies by their endemic philosophical premises necessarily scapegoat the “Other” based upon some group identity that happens to serve the power interests of the Authoritarian regime de jure. Jew, Christian, Black, White. Capitalist, Majority, Infidel, Privileged…sometime it’s a buffet of identities:  White-Christian-Cisgendered, Male-Capitalist-Conservative, Black-Post-Reconstruction-Freeman…whatever bullshit collectivist label appeals to the snarling, snapping, frothing maws of the Collectivist Ideology power movement shills at the moment.

Today, the demon spawn of American neo-Marxism have simply, and simplistically, borrowed from our nation’s historical playbook of exploitative racial politics and swapped the moral categories. Now, it’s no longer “bad” to be black (or, more loosely, a “person of color”), instead it’s “bad” to be white.

Yes…drink deep of this unmitigated, unveiled, object horseshit, my friends…for this is how the grand, virtuous, progressive brain-children of the American political left have chosen to address four hundred years of New World racism: They hand it back to us in full, with merely a different colored bow adoring it.

Yes, my white, Generation X comrades—we of the “Free to Be You and Me” and “It don’t matter if you’re black or white” era of American history—the “racially enlightened” purveyors of socialist progress of our Baby Boomer elders never intended ACTUAL equality, as we were so often assured. For they understand, like all those who lust for power, that “equality under the Law” is a death knell for the ruling class. A population of Individuals does not need to be controlled by government violence…for they are a population that perfects cooperation. And thus Collectivism, being the utter antithesis of the Individual, will ALWAYS be divisive, and will exploit those divisions for power and wealth. No, our elders, as a political constituency, intended and intend to fleece us…to harvest us for wool and mutton, and send objectors and critics off to prisons (or worse) built with our own money. The “equality” schtick was mere folderol…a siren song to lure you into complaisance and complacency; to the oven and under the cloche.

And here finally we have arrived at the inevitable contradiction which invalidates the idea.

”White privilege” reduces the white individual to an existential state of that of mere animal…or perhaps more accurately described, a destructive force of nature. A force driven and determined by the intrinsic and utter malevolence of his (entirely abstract) “Whiteness”….a demonic force. This fatuous reduction of the white person’s nature completely deprives him of volition…of moral agency, and this necessarily makes it impossible for him to be morally culpable for the evils of which he is accused. A person with no real, no natural sense of Self cannot posses Self-agency. And possessing no sense of Self he cannot possess a will, since volition and agency and Self are inexorably corollary. In other words, a force of nature—“Whiteness”—has no Self, and thus is incapable of choice, and choice is a prerequisite for violations of morality. You do not accuse a tornado of evil when it flattens your barn or throws a tree into your chimney. You do not accuse a mountain lion of evil when it mauls a passing jogger.

If the white person MUST do evil because he IS evil, then he CANNOT CHOOSE good. And this abolition of choice makes describing his actions as “evil” a failure of logic. “Evil” as an adjective of morality cannot be applied to that which is conceded to lack will and thus choice as a function of its natural identity. The collectivist metaphysics of anti-white racists preclude the white person from culpability for “sin”. So speaking of things like “Social Justice” and “Reparations” and “Fairness” and “Responsibility” with respect to the manner in which whites are obligated to defer to “people of color” is a lie according to the VERY RATIONALE used by “progressives” to collectivize whites and thus inculcate their guilt as a group.

And by the by “people of color” is another racist label meant to denegrate the value of whites. Whites lack “color” you see, verve and spark and life and vibrancy…they are colorless, soulless, bleak, pedantic, inanimate. They can’t dance, are robotically cerebreal, and seek to anhillate the beauty of colorful peoples in order to reduce existence to a blank canvas. White people are the opposite of art, art being nature’s greatest gift.

Absent any root volition, then, we can safely exonerate the white person of his Universal Guilt and Collective Crime Against Humanity. For such accusations require moral agency, and by the intrinsic fatal error of racist leftist ideology this becomes quite impossible.

Not that the metaphysical deprivation of choice for the white person, according to leftist hypocrisy and ignorance, should provide him any sense of security. Individuals who have been stripped of their human identity are much easier to annihilate should enough power make its way into the hands of the anti-white racists to do so. After all, one feels little guilt over delivering a bullet to the brain of a rabid feral dog, or burning a field of devouring locusts. However, the white person can take some comfort in knowing that the anti-white racist gun barrel targeting him will inevitably be turned upon he who holds it, and this by the gun-holder’s very own kind and motivated by his very own ideology. Collectivist metaphyics, you see, are unavoidably self-destructive. And this because they are Destruction, Itself. Collectivist metaphysics hates ALL of humanity, not just white people. The deeply buried and ignored little truth is that just as the infinite benevolence of Individualism is no respecter of persons, neither is the infinite perniciousness of Collectivism. Collectivism survives by cordining off humanity into units of “collectively innocent” (“perpetual victim”), and “collectively guilty” (“perpetual criminal”), and uses the power of the State to direct and manage the conflict. Once one group of “guilty” is sufficiently exploited and annihilated, then another is needed to take its place, and thus a new group of “criminals” is culled from what was once the group of pure “victims”. And so on and so forth until there are no longer enough “criminals” and “victims” left for the power structure of the State to thrive; and without the monopolistic violent power of the State, collectivist ideology cannot thrive. Whereupon it collapses back into Hell’s maw where it lays dormant until resurrected by another bunch of leftist, power-hungry psychopaths, towing their seemingly interminable string of useful idiots along behind them.

Remeber this well, my friend:

It is NEVER a privilege for the Individual to be collectivized.

No matter what color he is.

 

Advertisements

What Ayn Rand Gets Very Right and Christians Get Very Wrong (and why Christian Orthodoxy is Not About Love but Loathing)

The greatest contribution to ethics in the twentieth century I submit is Ayn Rand’s popularization of the Virtue of Selfishness.  Because what she gets so very right, up to the point of being utterly axiomatic (if our ethics are indeed rational), is that one who acts wholly in his own self-interest cannot but help be concomitantly acting in the interest of his neighbor.  Without fully delving into the metaphysics behind this axiom, in the interest of time and context, the root of this perfect ethic is that others are the complete existential equal of the Self.  This means that the default root moral status of all others is existential equality to the Self, and thus when one’s Self is pursued and its interests sought, the interest of the Other is a natural consequence, and manifests to a qualitatively equal degree.

Allow me to explain. And here, understand, is where I will deviate from Rand’s specific metaphysics, and exposit my own defense of virtuous selfishness.  The following exposition very much depends upon a completely different metaphyscial primary than the one subscribed to by Rand (existence).  My primary is Ability, and from this I assert that individual consciousness is a proper and necessary component of any rational metaphysics; and, being the ONLY thing which can develop and apply reason (conceptual consistency), which is how reality and truth is established AT ALL, consciousness, itself, at root, is an ENTIRELY objective manifestation of reality.  Conversely, Rand rejects consciousness as having any particularly necessary function within reality taken holistically, and sees it as intrinsically subjective, as its primary function is, as Objectivism implies, to interpret that (existence) which is fundamentally exclusive of interpretation.

*

Every individual human being exists metaphysically as a Self qua Self (YOU (or I) as a function of your SELF…the “you-ness” which IS YOU in the most fundamental sense); and the FACT of that existence is itself the PROOF of the propriety of one’s existence.  In other words, the FACT that one exists is the proof of the de facto NECESSITY of one’s existence—reality NEEDS one’s existence to be, in fact, REAL, you might say.  Reality cannot be absolutely real if its components—e.g. one who exists—are not essential.  For example, it is irrational to assert that one who exists could just as easily not have existed (been born); this means, effectively, that their existence is not fundamentally necessary to reality.  The reason this is irrational is simple.  We have NO frame of reference for the non-existence of what exists, because non-existence and existence are mutually exclusive contexts.  Or, simplified, IS and IS NOT are mutually exclusive frames of reference.  If I AM, then my frame of reference is from the place of WHAT IS (what is real, and exists, period, and absolutely).  Which means that I can ONLY observe and describe what likewise IS.  In order for me to talk of you, for example, not needing to exist, you NEED TO EXIST.  Do you see the contradiction?  I cannot claim that your existence is not necessary since it is necessary that you exist in order for me to make the claim in the first place.  Whatever exists, exists; whatever is real is real.  Period.  The hypothetical thought experiment of “what if X did not exist/had never been born” is INIFINITELY hypothetical.  It is entirely irrelevant to anything, except perhaps, a good science fiction story.  Now, it is quite tempting here to dive into the rabbbit hole of choice and free will, but I have to end this article sometime before retirement, so let’s just leave it at that for now.

As I was saying, the fact that one exists is proof of the de facto necessity of their existence.  And here is where it gets interesting…because here is where metaphysics inexorably incorporates what I call the Morality of the Metaphysical.  What I mean is that metaphysics, in order to mean anything, must have, itself, intrinsic value, and thus cannot be entirely cordoned off from eithcs.  It’s fascinating just how the five categories of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics) incorporate and even embody one another so precisely.  Because one’s existence is necessary, one’s existence is necessarily GOOD.  Put generally, existence (or reality…the two are essentially equivalent, metaphysically speaking) is Good, because it MUST BE; and since man exists, he likewise MUST BE, and therefore he is, in his root existence, likewise Good.

Thus, all men being equal in their metaphysical value (Good), and understanding that the Individual Self is that from which and to which all men (being at root Individuals) act, and understanding that the Self is the reference for reality, communicating meaning with other Selves (other men) and drawing a consensus of meaning together, then all men who thus act in service to their own Individual interests will necessarily and concomitantly act in service to the interests of their fellow man.  And this is what is meant by the “virtue of Selfishness”.

For example, if I choose to marry and have children with a woman I note to possess virtues I find valuable, based upon a RATIONAL definition of virtue, then in keeping and fulfilling my wedding vows I am serving my own interests as much as I am serving the interests of my wife and children, who have entered into the relationship voluntarily (the only way a true relationship is possible).  And, yes, I know the children didn’t “choose” to be born, but (without going into metaphysical detail here) it is simply irrational to consider anyone, even children, as someone OBLIGATED to a relationship against their will.  It is my job as a parent to make sure that I provide my children with an environment that reflects their right to the sanctity of their own lives, body and property, with abundant displays of affection and genuine pleasure and privilege with respect to their company, so as to accurately represent the context of what a voluntary relationship should look like.  In short, I am obligated to provide my children with an environment that they could CHOOSE to be in, by all rational standards (love, resources, negotiation, the absence of corporeal punishment,  shared responsibility to whatever degree possible, shared input, respect, rejection of any Authority/Submission dynamic, etc.etc.).

Getting married and devoting resources to having children then is not sacrifice, it is selfishness.  It utterly serves me…and in rationally serving myself, I have served my family.  And this is precisely why there is virtue in selfishness.  If I build a business to serve myself, the corollary is provision of value to my employees and customers.  I never have to think about their needs and desires directly or explicitly.  Their needs are fulfilled as a function of fulfilling my own.  All notions of altruism, sacrifice, charity (in the “giving of one’s self” sense) are entirely superfluous.  Real moral utopia then is not found in sacrifice, but selfishness.  And as scandalizing as this may seem, this is, in fact, the ONLY true and rational morality possible for man.  Period.

*

In order to employ virtuous selfishness we must eradicate Self-loathing from ethics entirely.  In other words, we must understand and accept the inherent value of man at his metaphysical root.  Because man is metaphysically Good, he must possess an innate and existential sufficiency to the apprehension of Truth (epistemology), and Truth’s corollary, Good, and then make choices in service to these things.  Man is by his nature able to define and apprehend the distinction between truth and falsehood and good and evil and then make volitional choices based upon that knowledge.  Man possesses AGENCY, which is capable and efficacious, as a function of his very metaphysical IDENTITY.  Man in his natural state is Good, and thus in his epistemology (capacity for knowledge) capable of Truth, and thus in his ethics (capacity for morality) capable of choosing Good, and thus in his politics (capacity for efficacious moral action) capable of manifesting (acting out) Truth and Goodness.  Man’s sufficiency to the knowledge of the true and the good is one with his root nature…it is not bestowed upon him post-conception by some external force, be it God or be it Nature.  Certainly, man is not born knowing…he is not born wise.  This is not what I am saying.  I am saying that man IS born ABLE to know, and ABLE to acquire wisdom.  He learns because he IS.  His abilty to think and do is HIS, from himself, by nature.  It is not given to him…it IS him.  And it is here where my apostasy with respect to orthodox Christianity comes to a fine point.  Orthodox Christianity rejects this metaphysic to the point of war, literally.  And it is why Christianity is an unmitigated disaster by any rational measure: social, emotional, intellectual, psychological, political…it is a shared psychosis that eats humanity from the inside out.  It HATES humanity with a red hot passion…it knows absolutely nothing of love at root.  But we will get to that.

For man to act truly morally, he must accept a root nature that has endemic/intrinsic moral value; and thus, from this, knowing it and knowing its ethical implications, when he acts (necessarily) from and to himself in his own best interest, he concordantly and concomitantly acts in service to the Interests of his fellow man.  This is the reason why those who accept their own natural moral worth are the ones who are the most compassionate.  In almost every case, on the contrary, those who loath themselves prove to be the most insufferable and vile of the species, either explicitly or surreptitiously.  Every narcissist and psychopath in the world operates from the metaphysical principle that declares themselves to possess no root worth, and thus neither does anyone else.  Their occasional sense of grandiosity is a mask for their terminal and inviolable self-hatred.  I submit that this is axiomatic.  There is no way you can despise your fellow man and love yourself, where “man” is defined RATIONALLY.  There is only one rational morality, and it begins with innate Self-worth and bestows that same worth upon others.

*

Here then we can begin to see the categorical failure of the orthodox Christian Ethic.  It is an ethic that asserts obedience to Authority (the divine Ideal, the Church, and the State…the unholy trinity of Platonist ethics) as man’s highest moral obligation, not the making of moral choices; asserts punishment, not rational self-inflicted consequence, as the proper outcome for ethical failure; asserts fear, not love, as the primary form of human motivation.  Bear in mind that this is NOT what Christ ACTUALLY teaches, nor what the Bible declares in either of its Testaments (though I will submit that the Apostle Paul’s grip on rational ethics often gets quite tenuous).  But orthodox Christianity has about as much use for Christ as Tiberius.  Christian ethics of the last 1500 years or so is a derivative of pagan gnosticism, with its interpretive lense brought to bear upon Christ’s legacy first by Augustine of Hippo and formally canonized and organized by the Martin Luther and John Calvin.  My point is simply:  don’t blame Christ for the abject failure of Christian ethics.

Orthodox Christianity espouses the metaphysical insufficiency of man.  He is not in his nature Good, but Evil, and therefore utterly incapable of apprehending Truth and choosing Good.  His very IDENTITY is antagonistic to TRUTH.  This is why Christianity asserts that all knowledge and morality must be DICTATED to man.  His natural insufficiency to Truth makes him capable of no real understanding.  He must thus be treated, fundamentally, as one would an animal.  He is to be trained, not taught.  He is to be motivated by threats and violence, and rewarded with condescension.  It is why the concept of “humility” has been bastardized by the Church to mean a rejection of the idea that one possesses an inntate, natural sufficiency to goodness and truth.  To take credit for one’s own success and accomplishments is viewed as “sinful pride”, because anything of true value comes not from within man, but from without.  Any moral behavior exhibited by an individual always occurs in SPITE of his humanity, not because of it.  It is why even “saved” Christians still speak of “needing the gospel”, and explain that they don’t actually do any good thing in and of themselves, but operate entirely “under God’s grace”.  It’s the whole false idea of “but for the grace of God go I”—an Individual making good choices according to his own volition, and reaping the benefits of such choices is anathema to Christian ethics.  In Christianity there is no fundamental difference between the unsaved criminal being marched to the dungeon and the saved Christian spectator observing from afar.  Both are criminals at root, as far as God is concerned, it’s just that by some divine mystery God decided to spare the Christian.  It has nothing to do with the Christian spectator actually CHOOSING to turn away from criminal activity and because of THAT avoiding a date with the iron maiden.  And even if Christianity might equivocate and concede that choice is possible, it is only because God grants one the “grace” to make that choice…so no, it’s not actually man making the choice at all, it’s God.  Left to himself, man will NEVER make the right choice.  And this assertion denies man any REAL choice entirely.

Christians understand, at least implicitly, because the doctrine declares it EXPLICITLY, that there can be no actual justification of or for that (man) which is absolute evil at its existential root.  The whole salvation process is very much an appeal to inexplicable mystical powers which transcend man’s “finite” reality; his intellect and his reasoning.  There are no answers to the paradoxes (rational contradictions) of Christian theology because they are utterly beyond the mind of man…beyond his very existence.  Man is saved, but he cannot say why beyond “grace”, and then a shrug as to what this actually means.  God chooses some people over others, seemingly at random.  There is some plan God has, we are told, but the wherefore and the why…who knows?  Christian metaphysics deny that a thing like salvation is possible, but somehow it happens anyway.  The whole philosophy is a massive boiling cauldron of contradiction simmering into a cosmic soup of “God’s mystery”.  Just take the cup and drink.  Don’t spend any time thinking about it.

So for all the talk of man receiving a “righteousness from God’, or a “new birth/new nature”, or being “Justified by Christ”, Christians implicitly understand that they are still Sin of Sin.  And this is why abject misery is so common in the Church. These aren’t congregations of broken people getting healed, as we are told.  These are execution chambers where people are slowly gassed into a brain dead stupor by contagious conginitve dissonance brought upon by the endlessly wafting sedative of rank mysticism.  The life of a Christian is not the fulfillment of the Self, but the sacrifice of it.  The Christian is not imbued with a sense of empowerment, but is instead entirely disarmed, intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually.  He learns not how to take upon himself true responsibility, but to hand off his duties and questions to God, letting “His will be done”, in yet another bastardization of the words of Christ.  The Christian does not learn to take up the mantle of his own cause and pursue his dreams with strength and confidence, but to utterly submit himself to “God’s plan”…outsourcing his brain to the Divine, as though God gave him a mind purely on a lark.  He is not given the freedom to exercise his own intellect, now unfettered by the lies of the world and the devil, in service to his own passions, but is sternly reminded that his greatest moral obligation is to obey Authority.  Once saved, the Christian soon finds himself under the “divine mandate” of the church leadership, who are expecting him to sacrifice his time and reasources in pursuit of not his own interests, but that of the greater Christian Ideal.  Of which, of course, they are in charge.

Thus the Christian, now saved and yet still lacking ANY REAL understanding of his own innate worth, is incapable of Self-love, and thus is likewise incapable of loving his neighbor.  The ONLY real, necessary, and ultimately relevant difference between one who is saved and one who is not is that he who is saved has recognized that the sum and substance of his life’s meaning and purpose is to annihilate himself in service to the Christian Authority placed over him, which is God and his Will as manifest by the ecclesiastical powers of the pulpit.  In other words, he is saved in order to sacrifice himself to the worldly ambitions of other men.  Period.

*

According to the ethics of Christian orthodoxy, Self-loathing, not Self-love, is one’s default ethical frame of reference. Through the instruction of accepted orthodox doctrine, consistent in its essence amongst all protestant denominations and Catholicism, man is taught to hate his own existence as an act of his own First Sin (his birth) and thus concomitantly the existence of his neighbor.  He therefore implicitly yearns for the destruction of both.  In other words, as the orthodox Christian proclaims his love for God he implies his disgust for humanity.  The relationship betweeen loving God and hating man is indeed direct.  And this is scarcely surreptitious amongst Christians today, though perhaps not said quite as bluntly.  I have heard it stated this way:  that as one’s recognition of God’s glory (i.e. God’s supreme existential moral superiority) grows, a recognition of one’s own moral insufficiency (i.e. man’s supreme existential worthlessness) likewise grows.  And THIS, it is said, is the mark of a true Christian.  The mark of true salvation is that he continues to grow in the understanding that he HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, because his very existence at root is an offense to God.  And from this we can extrapolate further to see then the FOUNDATIONAL mark of one’s salvation:  the growing knowledge that he, being evil incarnate, is unable to possess a frame of reference for SALVATION AT ALL.

How is that for a kick in the crotch with irony?

It is this basic orthodox Self-loathing which is the reason Christians are so in love with rules and obsessed with punishment.  Man, being morally defunct in his existence, is insufficient to truth and to moral behavior.  And thus control, not freedom, and dictated behavior, not choice, is how the ethics of one’s salvation are to be worked out.  It is why Christianity has always promoted corporeal punishment for children, and has lusted endlessly after the power monopoly of the State—the Church almost ubiquitously imitates their own brand of absolute power (dictating behavior, punishing rulebreakers and wrongthink), routinely implementing Authority-Submission polity to the greatest extent it can get away with.  It is why churches are so often brothels of the worst kinds of moral degeneracy imaginable, like blackmail, child rape and all other varieties of sexual abomination, extortion, manipulation, deception, indoctrination, intimidation, oppression, theft, and murder.  It is why Christianity holds excommunication over the heads of the laity like the sword of Damocles, and why church schisms occur as often as Communion.  It is impossible to show love to others or one’s self when the metaphysics of one’s philosophy declare man’s very birth an act of moral corruption and a violation of God’s perfect creation.

Love, you see, is the desires and behavior generated by employing rational ethics.  Rational ethics places the Self as the moral frame of reference.  Rational ethics recognizes the legitimacy of man at his natural root, and understands the Self to be the singular essence of each human being, and which is necessarily good, and thus shall not be violated.  It shall be free to exist, not enslaved to Authority.  And since all men are equal Selves at root, making the SELF the reference for truth and morality (virtuous selfishness), it is ensured that an Individual, unfettered by the false chains of Authority, who will thus freely act in service to his own wishes and wants, will necessarily act in service to those of his neighbors in the form of cooperation.  All interactions with one’s fellow man will result in the mutual benefit of value exchange.  But again, notice how this—how this rational love—demands that man have intrinsic natural worth.  It concedes that man’s birth is an act of Divine Expression, not an offense to the Divine.  Since Christianity asserts that the birth of a human being is an expression of one’s natural depravity, and as such is an act of rebellion against God, rendering unto man an existential worthlessness to an infinite degree, love by any measure is simply impossible.  Man possess no frame of reference from which to give love or receive it.  And this is why salvation comes from God to man in SPITE of himself; indeed, all expressions of “love” from God or from others comes to man in spite of himself.  And all his acts of “love” are never done BY him, but THROUGH him, by the Spirit.  In other words, man qua man (man, himSelf) is merely a bystander to love and morality in general.  He is a two-dimensional character in a predetermined bit of theater, written and directed by the Divine Author.  He, himSelf, thus, being wholly unnatural with respect to God’s perfect and perfectly moral reality, doesn’t actually exist at all.

*

In order to truly love—that is, in the way that Christians cannot—humanity must accept its own innate natural worth, and reject the satanic notion of innate moral failure.  This is the difference between Self-love and Self-sacrifice (or Self-loathing)…and yes, these are mutually exclusive concepts.  The former always acts in love whilst the latter never does. The former always saves, the latter always murders.

END

You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with Your Life (PART 2)

I submit that political correctness is unabashedly spawned from the substrata of collectivist metaphysics.  It claims to defend the civil rights and emotional integrity of “underrepresented” and “disadvantaged” groups…and this implicitly beyond, in spite of, and, at root, INSTEAD OF the principle of Equality Under the Law which the US Constitution guarantees for all of the nation’s citizens. So…already we seem to have something of a paradox going on here. Let’s unravel it.

As soon as it is claimed that one group (or more) is “disadvantaged”, it is necessarily implied that another is “advantaged”.  Therefore the only (rationally) possible, albeit perhaps implicit, goal of those advocating for “disadvantaged” groups is to make them “advantaged”, though they will claim either from ignorance or deceit that it is merely “equality” they are after.  But this simply cannot be the case as I will explain.

It’s not possible to have the second (“disadvantaged”) without the first (“advantaged”), so what advocacy for the “disadvantaged” amounts to in the end is merely the reversal of labels.  That is, there is and can be no real interest in equality, but rather in creating a system whereby the “advantaged” are relieved of their property through State-sponsored (“legal”) theft which is then given to the “disadvantaged”, ostensibly to engender social equality but in reality to create a permanently dependent category of voters who sell their freedom and their souls to have their fellow citizens pillaged by the State on their behalf…or so they think.  In truth the plight of the “disadvantaged” never ACTUALLY improves because that isn’t really the point.  In other words, advocacy for the “disadvantaged” is merely a barely-clever strategem intended to grow the Marxist-oriented ruling class into a juggernaut of utterly insatiable authoritarian political power.

There can be no rational speaking of equality whilst there exists any sort of collectivist class baiting, with spurious and manipulative jargon like “disadvantaged”, and this because of the collectivist metaphysical roots of whatever group of citizens happens to be the momentary political pawn du jour.  Because these metaphysical roots are certainly NOT merely political, but existential and as such MORAL, you see.  What I mean is that soon as one group is classified as “disadvantaged”, thus implying another is “advantaged”, we have morally bifurcated the citizenry at the very roots of how we define reality, itself.  That is, we have made our spurious class distinctions into a LITERAL war between good and evil; and this is why there is such ferocious and utterly intractable violence to be found on the collectivist side (the left) of the political spectrum. Collectivist politics make no distinction between a group’s economic value and its MORAL value.  The “advantaged” are EVIL; the disadvantaged” are GOOD…and why are they good?  Well, ostensibly because they are the victims of the political structures established by the “advantaged” in order that they may remain advantaged.  In reality it is because they are the group that the collectivist ruling elite have decided promote the Ideal which they will represent as Its governing Authority.  The “disadvantaged” are the group that promotes the expediency of their power.  This is the ONLY reason they are called “good”. Period. Full stop.

Another point on this idea of the “disadvantaged” as victims of political and institutional oppression, and thus represent the good:

Whether there is any truth to this ot not is irrelevant.  First, because those who advocate for the “disadvantaged” are those who wish to use the coercive violence of the State to promote their OWN political ideals at the expense of certain groups, making them hypocrites; and second because once you collectivize  human beings into groups—as opposed to foundationally judging and defining them as individuals—morality becomes utterly subjective.  To define an individual as FIRST and FUNDAMENTALLY a product of the group is to replace the person with an IDEAL.  And ideals, being purely abstract, can ONLY be SUBJECTIVELY valued.

Further, the “disadvantaged” cannot be made equal with the “advantaged” BY DEFINITION, because these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is, it is impossible that EVERYONE be “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” because this contradicts these very concepts in the first place. So in order to be rationally consistent we must argue that these distinction are inherently false and utterly illegitimate as a means to describe the people…that everyone should be equal under the law, and that “disadvantage” and “advantage” are labels to be banished from political discourse (as self-serving and manipulative) and that equality under the law is ultimately the only meaningful, relevant, and practical context of each and every citizen as far as the State is concerned.

But this is simply impossible as soon as one claims to advocate for the “disadvantaged”.  You either advocate for equality under the law, or you advocate for the authoritarian despotism we see in EVERY society which has rooted itself in the pernicious class-baiting sculduggery of the bastard children of collectivism (Marxism, National Socialism (Fascism), Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, and so on).

And so, getting back to the Constitution:

This document does not collectivize the citizenry (at least not intentionally…the inevitable rational and moral failure of the Constitution is due to the fact that it implies the legitimacy of government, of course, but not because of its driving metaphysical principles, which cannot be considered collectivist per se). And since it does not collectivize the citizenry it can neither imply nor confess the legitimate, legal existence or relevance of any particular “class”.  The Constitution, in other words, because it is not a collectivist document, has no frame of reference for the notions of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged” groups.  These are strictly Marxist ideals, and as far as the Constitution is concerned Marxism is a flaming ball of rubbish orbiting somewhere on the far, far outer fringes of reality, somewhere between madness and incompetence.  That is, class distinctions like “disadvantaged” are utter anathema to the Constitution.

Groups claiming that they are doing the “holy” work of advocacy for the “disadvantaged” you will notice NEVER appeal to the Constitution as the basis for rectifying any perceived unfair legal discrepancies between individuals.  This is because A. they don’t acknowledge the root existential legitimacy of the individual in the first place; and B. the Individualist nature of the Constitution means that as far as they are concerned it has about as much to do with rectifying social injustice and managing the disparate economic classes as does a spoonful of room temperature lima beans. They don’t concern themselves with the Constitution because they understand it is an ENEMY of their collectivist assumptions. True “Justice”, in their eyes, is not about the Constitutional rights of the Individual but about who wields absolute power on behalf of the “moral” collective Ideal.  The politics of political correctness are of power, not truth; revenge, not justice; sacrifice to the State, not cooperation among the people.

END (Up next, PART 3)

Argument From Authority: the Christian’s go-to move

Last week I had a heady discussion/debate with a friend of mine at the home-school cooperative my children attend.  Beginning with some marginally interesting/relevant social issues, in particular the NFL kneeling-for-the-anthem controversy, and then proceeding in due course to the meatier topics of Christian theology and doctrine, it went on for well-over an hour.  Happily, we found ourselves in agreement about a great many things.  It was turning out to be quite the satisfying and encouraging yarn.

Or so it seemed.

In reality, I suppose it was no real shock to discover that we actually had nothing in common, theologically speaking.  Since my full-on commitment to heterodoxy seven years ago, I have had these sorts of conversations with Christians—99% of whom are orthodox—many, many times.  And they ALWAYS end the same way.  Always, always, always.  Without fail; without distinction; without caveat; without ambiguity; without doubt.

Any theology/doctrine discussion, given enough time, will eventually terminate at metaphysics: the nature of reality; the nature of man.  And once we get down to metaphysics, there are really only two directions you can go:  Reason or Mystery.  That is, do we define man according to an innate existential ability to apprehend Truth, make moral distinctions, and then choose good over evil (or vice versa); or do we define him as merely an epiphenomenon…his consciousness and his will merely an illusion, purely a function of some great, transcendent determinative Force, which we may define as God (or the gods, or the Universal Mind, or Natural Law/Evolution, and so on)?  In other words, can man truly KNOW by what means and to what measure he exists, and can he be certain of what is true and what is not, and from that what is good and what is not, and from that CHOOSE on his own behalf to manifest his existence in a way that is utterly and objectively REAL? Or is Truth infinitely beyond him, because he is not, at essence, himself, but a direct function of some Ultimate Power which controls all things, as all things are, in fact, an absolute function of this Power, Itself.

I don’t expect it will come as any surprise to learn that my friend ultimately appeals to mystery metaphysics.  He is, after all, a consummately orthodox Christian, whereas I have rejected orthodoxy on the grounds that it indeed projects this very brand of metaphysics.  I have rejected the idea that real knowledge is the knowledge that one cannot ever actually know.  And any definition of God which makes everything fundamentally an extension of Himself by hermeneutically wrecking the distinctions between Him and the iterations of His creation, is at root an appeal to Nothing as the root of Truth.  Because if everything IS God, then we cannot ever actually know what God is…because we cannot tell what He is not.  It’s like when we are told that nothing happens which God does not allow.  If this is true, then human choice is impossible for obvious reasons.  And if human choice is impossible, then knowledge is meaningless, which makes “knowledge” itself a contradiction in terms, and thus makes it impossible to KNOW God.  Which means you cannot declare that nothing happens which God does not allow.  Because…who is God?  Shrug.  That’s a mystery.

Now, this is all interesting and is all well and good, but it’s not really the point of this article.  The point of the article is to examine the way in which my friend defended a particular metaphysical assertion towards the end of our discussion.  I questioned the veracity of his claim that man was “fallen” and that God did not consider any “unregenerate” person’s actions to be moral, regardless of whether or not they WERE, in fact, moral. In other words, my friend conceded that man is born with the innate capacity to apprehend Truth and is therefore capable of making moral choices, but that as far as God is concerned, ALL the choices of those who have not confessed Christ as Savior are evil choices.

I demured, saying that if God decides that what is moral is in fact immoral, then he has contradicted Himself by contradicting reason.  How can God value Himself as Good whilst at the same time denouncing man’s good choices—whether he is “unregenerate” or not—as being fundamentally evil?  No God worth his name would conflate evil with good and then have the audacity and lack of self-awareness enough to simultaneously proclaim Himself a MORAL being,  Furthermore, if ALL of man’s choices are evil, then man can never be in a position to accept Christ as Savior, because THAT choice is, to Christians, the apogee of moral action.  God must choose FOR man.

So…let me get this straight.  God must choose Himself, BY (or OF) Himself (that is, from His own will), and somehow this means that man, who has absolutely nothing to do with THAT Choice can now make choices that God now considers to be moral?

Er…

I’m sorry, but this kind of theology is madness, and doesn’t come within a thousand miles of reasonable.  It’s magical thinking…the stuff of children’s fairy tales and old wives tales and superstition.

And yet, what did my friend say in reply?

Exactly what you’d expect.

”But, that’s Bible.”

And that, my friends, is called an argument from authority.  And it is the Christian’s go-to move whenever they find themselves backed into a theological corner.  Always.

You see, it doesn’t matter that the idea is completely devoid of reason, and that it is impossible to explain because how do explain a square circle?  How do you convince someone with words that black is simultaneously white or that up is down or that a bird is a cloud?  You don’t.  Because there are no words for such a task.  Words are the audible expression of ideas, which can only exist if contradiction is excluded from the process of formulating the concepts which are connected together to form those ideas.  If A is NOT distinct from B then neither can be said to exist.  Man cannot express “tree” if “tree” also means “shoe”.

Once Authority has been injected into the discussion, then there IS NO LONGER any discussion because words have become entirely meaningless.  You accept what the Bible says because it’s the Bible and because it’s the Bible you accept what it says.  This is a tautology, and it specifically falls under the category of “argument from authority”.

You see, the argument from authority removes any “why?” from the equation.  There is NO “WHY?” because Authority is FORCE, absolutely, and therefore becomes its own “why?”.  To ask why is to assume you have the right to have something explained to you…but that explanation has been punted entirely out of the realm of Truth.  You OBEY, you don’t ask questions.

So what my friend did, and I like to think unwittingly, is completely nullify the hour of discussion that preceded his declaration that what is an utterly ridiculous, impossible, and intellectually treasonous description of man’s metaphysical state is nevertheless true because the Bible says it.

Well, A, no the Bible doesn’t say it…YOU say it.  I know the Bible, and I can assure you that it makes no such assertion, period.  Full stop.  THAT foolish and evil metaphysic has been smuggled into the pages of the Bible by the gnostic paganist roots of the Augustine/Luther/Calvin theological death cult.  And B, according to your very own admission, the Bible cannot actually say anything because clearly words don’t matter.  The Bible is force, and therefore is not obligated to EXPLAIN a damn thing to you or me or anyone else.  The Bible is nothing more than an idol or a talisman which demands your categorical obedience under threat of terrible punishment.  So how dare you deign to attempt to explain it to me.  How dare you decide that it SAYS something…as if the Sword “says” anything other than “obey or die”.  As if meaning matters.

And this…was sad.  The whole conversation was a bust, I believe.  His declaration was a tacit admission that he has no real interest in what he says he believes, let alone in convincing me of its rational and intellectual integrity.  The point of Christianity is to force the world to obey, nothing more.  Which in actual fact makes its theological apologetics of no more relevance nor interest than any old random jumble of words.  The entirety of Christian orthodoxy has been reduced to mere mouth noises.

So the next time someone says “But, it’s Bible”, take a glance upwards.  See up there?  That’s where you’ll find the guillotine dangling when the political conclusions of that statement are finally realized.

END

 

Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson: The terrible and fascinating car crash of IQ and moral worth

I know in my last article I said would deal with the difference between mystery, paradox, and contradiction.  But alas, I must detour. Because yesterday I stumbled upon a video that I simply must address.  Thank you for your forbearance.

It was a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray, two of arguably the greatest libertarian (I mean ideologically, not politically) social commentators of our time.  (If you don’t know who they are, just look them up on YouTube…you’ll find as much information as you want.) They were discussing, adroitly, as is expected, a myriad of things, among which was the controversy of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and race.  Unsurprisingly, the notion of some races performing better on IQ tests than others came up, and with that, the concern that this information may cause some manner of genetic superiority collectivism to rear its ugly head and begin to categorize human worth based on quantifications of intelligence. That this method of collectivizing humanity is so particularly scandalous seems at first surprising, given that humanity has been collectivizing itself, to disastrous moral effect, for thousands of years, based upon almost any reason at all.  Since any group characteristic can be and has been used to classify humanity into superior and inferior classes and castes since time immemorial, why is this so particularly shocking to heady thinkers like Murray and Peterson?

Well, the reason is pretty straightforward, and you’ve probably already figured it out.  You see, intelligence is a scientifically proven and statistically verified means of predicting future life success, even correcting for race, language, social context, socioeconomic status, and any other factor you can think of.  It has been used since the early 20th century and has never failed, as a general instrument of measure, to gauge intelligence and then empirically verify the results through objective evaluations of life performance.  Put simply, IQ tests are overwhelmingly effective at predicting life success (where “success” is defined according to socioeconomic scales in a given sociopolitical context), no matter who is being tested or where or when.  Okay, not so controversial…so far so good.  But here is where intellectuals and moral men like Peterson and Murray get the vapors, and you saw this coming a mile away.

Which groups, pray tell, score highest on IQ tests?  Asians, Jews, and Whites.  Now, in this day age of rampant, insatiable, and insidious social Marxism in the West, the first two aren’t much of a problem.  But the last one…the Whites…well, to say that Whites are more intellegent than Browns is like saying the Devil is more powerful than God.  The argument that “Jews and Asians are smarter that’s Whites” is irrelevant to the rabid masses of Marxist ideologues rampaging through the West with their bike-locks-turned-cudgels and their Malotov cocktails, both literally and figuratively.  The fact that a white person is more intelligent than a brown person on average is the problem, and is a fact that must be denied, and is just one more example of Western “institutional racism” and the white man’s inherent existential proclivity towards deception and manipulation and of course his endemic natural evil; and just one more reason white people need to be destroyed en masse. And make no mistake, to marginalize any group by claiming an inherent existential moral deficiency, which is exactly what the left is doing with whites, is to declare the need to wipe them out.  Regardless of what anyone tells you, if you concede the root existential moral failure of a group of people, the only rational means of dealing with them to murder them.  If the white man is evil because he is white, which is a function of nothing more than his birth, then he has no right to live.  If the existence of the white man means that he is inexorably White at his very natural root, and White is evil, then the white man has no right to exist, period.  The logic is clear, it is simple, and it is utterly consistent if we concede the metaphysical premise that Whitness = inherent moral depravity.

Now, as I said, the left explains the discrepancy of IQ between whites and browns on institutional racism, social manipulation, and outright perfidy and mendaciousness on the part of the western “White Patriarchy”, due to the natural depravity of white people, who are born this way.  But see, Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray know that this is not the case.  At the same time, the empirical and statistical evidence cannot be ignored.  The scientific fact is that, on the whole, white people are more intelligent than brown people.  And because it is a fact, there is some concern amongst both Peterson and Murray, that this information will be used by some right-wing ideologues to declare whites a superior class, and, necessarily, to seek to demonize and politically (and eventually, ACTUALLY) eliminate the inferior classes.  Because, well…let’s be honest.  It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

As a hedge against this kind of argument, Peterson quickly, and rightly—for morality obliges him—points out the fact that the level of one’s intelligence does not determine the level of his moral worth.  And “moral worth” means the value of an individual’s life qua life…of their root existence.  And with that, all the controversy dissolves into mist, right?  It seems logical, after all.  Only a fool would deny such an obvious assertion.  How much your brain can do has no bearing how good you are as a person.  And…well, this is true.  I’ve no problem asserting that as an axiom.

But here is where it gets messy, and here is where I DO have a problem with the assertion.

Both Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray know that this is true, but they do not know WHY it is true.  And this is where it gets so, so interesting to me.  Because there is nothing more fun and fascinating than watching men who are geniuses in their fields venture into intellectual areas where they are so very clearly NOT geniuses.  Whilst there, they make some observations, and then never, ever address the gaping rational errors behind their ideas.  They talke about IQ and morality, utter an axiom, and then never address the problem of their premises not actually leading to the conclusion that the axiom is in fact axiomatic.  And you can hear the uncertainly in their voices…the cold, sharp claws of that thing digging into their brains telling them that no, it is not actually resolved at all.  That they haven’t any idea how to handle this.  And why?  Why?  They don’t know…it’s a big blank space.  Nothing is there…but is that because nothing is there, or something is there and they just can’t see it?  The axiom is clear:  Intellgence doesn’t define your moral worth as a person.  This is so intuitively true.  And it IS true….so why the hesitation?  Why is there no satisfaction in asserting something so true?

I will tell you why:

Peterson and Murray’s declaration of the truth that intelligence is exclusive of moral worth flat out contradicts their assertion that IQ is, in fact, an objective measure of objective outcomes. Because you cannot have it both ways.  You cannot divorce intelligence from morality AND claim that intelligence has objective VALUE.  Because value is, itself, at root, a function of morality…it is a matter of ethical truth, not epistemological truth.  To claim that something is objectively useful to reality, in some context or another, like, for example, the prediction of one’s socioeconomic performance via intelligence levels, is, in fact, a claim of objective moral worth.  In other words, to say that intelligence is objectively useful to man is to imply that it has value.  And value judgements—the degree to which something is good or bad, which can also be rendered as “useful or degrading”; “helpful or harmful”—are judgements at root of morality (meaning, they fall into the philosophical category of ethics, which deals with the distinction between what is good and what is not).  If high levels of intelligence are objectively useful to objective success then high intelligence must be said to be objectively GOOD.  Which in turn must mean that low intelligence is objectively BAD.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the rub.  You cannot divorce the “OBJECTIVE usefulness” of high intelligence from the “OBJECTIVE morality” of high intelligence.  The fact that having high intelligence produces “objectively” good outcomes for people and societies means that the people who possess high intelligence must be morally superior to those who possess low intelligence. If, of course, you accept the premise that the “success” intelligence predicts is objective. Which I promise you Murray and Peterson do.

And THAT is the nagging, gnawing thing in their brains which torments them.  They know, somewhere inside, that this must be the case (that intelligence = moral value) but the abomination of such an idea offends, and rightly so, their sensibilities as good and honest and kind and empathetic men, which they clearly are.  They know there’s a monster in the woods, but they have never seen him, so can they be so sure?

The answer is: Yes they can.  But I promise you that they will not like the reason.  They will very likely not and never accept the reason…so it goes.

The truth, which reconciles the moral dilemma, is that the “life success” which intelligence predicts is, in fact, not objective at all.  And this means that intelligence is nothing more than a character trait, which, like skin color or the size of one’s nose, may or may not have any meaning or value to the individual, his life, or reality.  Intelligence, you see, being divorced from morality, which it must be in order to avoid the  very real ethical dilemma Peterson and Murray discuss (valuing an individual according to his intelligence) doesn’t really have anything to do with knowledge, and I mean in the philosophically primary sense.  Because the knowledge of what IS is inexorably bound to the knowledge of what is GOOD; and furthermore the knowledge of what IS and is GOOD is only relevant and therefore objectively meaningful if it drives behavior.  Since IQ does not and cannot incorporate the relevant knowledge of objective truth corollary to objective moral truth BY also incorporating actual observed objective moral behavior, then intelligence indeed has NOTHING to do with one’s moral value. This being the case, intelligence is not the equivalent of what we might call “wisdom”.  And wisdom is where the Truth is.  Wisdom is knowledge, and the knowledge of what IS includes the knowledge of what IS GOOD, and is made manifest—made REAL—by one’s actions.  Wisdom is really all that matters when it comes to OBJECTIVE success, I submit.  And by that I mean, success absolutely, existentially, forever and ever.

See…I told you they wouldn’t like the answer.  In fact, I’m willing to bet that you don’t like it either. Which one am I?  A fool?  Deluded?  Possibly both?  Lol…I take no offense, dear reader.  Correct me where I stray, and if you cannot, then accept it.  Those are your only two rational choices

Here is my point in summary:

“Intelligence has nothing to do with one’s moral worth” is the assertion made my Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray, and it is a correct assertion.  What this means is that intelligence doesn’t have anything to do with morality, in general, at all. Intelligence, in other words, having nothing to do with man’s moral value, cannot itself have any moral value, because MAN provides the only rational reference for morality.  MAN decides the value of intelligence, not the other way around.

What DOES have something to do with man’s moral value, and incorporates morality, itself, in general, is knowledge of the Truth, or Wisdom. Because wisdom is the understanding of Truth and it’s corollary, Good, and is made REAL and meaningful through man’s behavior.  How do we know whether or not a man has moral worth, or to what degree it is?  Watch his actions and gauge them against objective morality…objective morality being that which references the individual, and thus does not violate his sanctity.  Does not kill him, steal from him, lie to him, abuse or threaten him.

Intelligence then becomes a subjective predictor of success, which makes the success which it predicts necessarily subjective also.  In such a case we are forced to consider intelligence, again having nothing to do with morality, as little more than a character trait which may or may not have any actual value, depending on the individual in question.  It may have value, if one’s definition of his success is that which intelligence can predict, but OBJECTIVE success—that which is manifest by the implementation of wisdom—is not a function of intelligence.

END

 

What House Hunters Can Teach Us About the Rational Failure of “Diversity-as-Equality”

One of my favorite ways to waste time is by watching House Hunters on HGTV, and all of its various spin-offs—Caribbean Life, Lakeside Bargain Hunt, Beachside Bargain Hunt, Mexico Life, Island Life, and House Hunters International.  For those of you unfamiliar with these shows, the premise is simple:  A person or persons goes shoppping for a new house/condo/apartment in some location; they visit usually three properties and at the end they consider all factors and make their pick.  During the last few seconds of the show it cuts to a couple months later and we see them in their new home where they gush that they’ve never known a life so perfect and sublime.  Which is of course complete hyperbole, but hey, it’s TV and hyperbole is how TV rolls.  For me the show is a relaxing way to run through a couple of cups of coffee in the morning as I gird my loins for the boring yet relentlessly demanding and occasionally soul-crushing meat grinder of the American middle class.  Yes, the whole experience of House Hunters is pleasantly anodyne.

Well…except for the arrant postmodern leftist social engineering with which it loves punching you in the face over and over again.  That part I could do without; but unfortunately, it’s par for the course in America today, because the version of morality in the uber-rich (and uber white) juggernaut of leftism which controls all of entertainment, virtually without rival, involves little more than the virtue signaling of “diversity”, where gay and brown people must be displayed in televised fabrications of reality in numbers utterly inconsistent with their actual population percentages.

But this is not what I really want to talk about.  Sure I could go on about how the last time I saw a mixed-race couple that wasn’t on television, even in the massively diverse DC metropolitan area where I grew up and still spend a lot of time, was in 2010, and they were friends from church who were politically conservative.  I could talk about how statistically whites make up over 60% of the population in this country, but if House Hunters is our guide, we can expect to see white people in public at a rate of maybe one or two every other Thursday.  I could explain that the numbers of home buyers in the US are overwhelmingly white and straight, but not on House Hunters, where your next door neighbors are just as likely to be craft beer-drinkers Chaz and Cody as they are to be soccer parents Steve and Becky.

But I don’t care about that…at face value.  That is, I don’t have a problem with the “what”.  Gay or brown, white or straight, go on with your self.  I despise nothing more than individuals submitting to an abstract social standard defined solely by group identity. To me, that is the Devil.  Be what you want and do what you want.  I don’t split individuals into collections of races or orientations.  The only people I hate are liars, theives, abusers, and murderers.  Because they are the ones depriving others of their choices and the ownership of their existence…they are the expression of Satan.  Not gays, not brown people, and not straight white men.

What I have a problem with is the “why”, and that is what I’m going to talk about in this article.

When it comes to “diversity” as a means of social progressivism, what is the assertion?  Well, let’s take television as an example, since I brought up House Hunters.  Why do “minorities” (and I use quotes because “minority” in the political sense has nothing to do with math, but with socialist collective identity)…why do “minorities” need to be portrayed on television in disproportionate numbers? Because postmodern eithical mores assert that they have a basic right to identify themselves in popular expressions of the greater culture.  In other words, people are said to feel better when they can regularly observe others who share a collective characteristic.  Minorities, we are told, feel more included, not when they are welcomed as individuals into society based on personal merit and value, but when they can identify with their own kind according to race, gender, and/or sexual orientation.  And one of the most effective and effcient ways to do this—to ensure social “justice” and “compassion”—is to show large numbers of minorities in media like television.  That is, to promote a version of reality on TV where straight white people observe members of their group less often, and minorities more often.

So…what’s wrong with this?  After all, white people have dominated the airwaves for 90% of television history.  Is it really a problem for shows to assert the idea that there is more to the human race than just white people?

The problem here is that these are trick questions.  The questions assume something that isn’t true:

A.  That we can ensure social equality by appealing to greater diversity.

B.  That it is rational to encourage a minority individual’s identification with the group as a means to dismantle the dominant group…at least in a way that will promote peace and general social cohesion.

The first, A., always makes me laugh because it is clearly a contradiction in terms.  The idea that diversity as a social ethic will spawn equality is impossible by definition.  The more you amplify distinctions between groups, the less equal you necessarily make these groups.  This is elementary logic.  And this is why equality between groups always comes at the expense of, not the benefit of, the majority group.  That is, the dominant group must be considered inherently immoral before you can proclaim the need for equal representation of the minority group or groups.

The majority group is the reason there needs to be greater minority group representation on television in the first place.  The majority group is the whole problem, you see.  The majority group, by being the majority group, is ipso facto commiting a sin by its very existence.  Its inherent moral failure is the fact that it IS at all.  The majority group, by being what it is, existentially and by definition, detracts from the minority group.  The fact that it exists at all presents a problem for the minority group in that the minority group is thus necessarily under represented, likewise existentially and by definition.  So the majority group, which causes the minority to be the minority, is bad, and thus is not of equal moral value as the minority group. Its existence is why there needs to be justice in the form of greater representation of the minority group on television. There thus can be no fundamental equality in diversity.  The very reason we need diversity in the first place is because the majority group doesn’t have it.  So when the left talks about diversity being an ethical obligation, they are NOT including the majority in their social utopia.  They are not including white people.

To allow the majority to exist is to deprive the minority group of its social virtue.  To represent the minority group as the minority, for example, on television, by showing its members in numbers only commensurate with their national population average, is to consign it to social marginalization, and this based upon the a priori ethical assumption that it is socially unjust for the majority to express itself (e.g. on television) as the majority.  Which, once the majority is no longer allowed to express itself…well, the majority is no longer allowed to exist.  Because being, and the expression of being, are corollary.  No matter what we are told, the claim that white people should not exist as the majority is to claim that white people should not exist at all.  Because, you see, according to collectivist (e.g. leftist) metaphysics, white individuals are not existentially distinct from whiteness—that is, their collective group identity.  So if whiteness is the majority, and the majority is evil because it by definition makes the minority the minority and thus diminishes the minority’s social value, then white people are de facto evil.  To assert the elimination of the white majority is to assert the elimination of white individuals.

Sorry if that’s a bucket of cold water, but it’s the truth.  Once you are defined according to your group identity, and that group is defined as evil, then YOU are evil.  And thus, you must be destroyed.

You may argue that all we need to do is make the majority no longer the majority. Once white people are no longer the majority in this country, then they will be moral.  They will be acceptable to the social Marxists who advocate equality by appealing to spurious collectivist ethics…which always result in mass murder, by the way.  But the entire moral degeneracy of the majority is inexorably tied to whiteness.  You cannot have a majority unless those in the majority group all share the same collective characteristic…in this case, being white.  The reality which historically has driven the state-sponsored mass murder of the immoral group—in our case, the white majority—is that if it weren’t for white individuals you wouldn’t have a white majority.  If it weren’t for white individuals, there wouldn’t be a massive social moral offense by the majority against the minority.  The idea then that you can separate the evil of the majority from the whiteness of the individual in that majority is a lie.  This is a bromide for the masses to obscure the truth.  Because white people will only accept the notion of diversity-as-equality if they think they are included in that diversity rainbow.

They aren’t.

It’s a big old diversity club, whitey…

…and you ain’t in it.

*

To claim that all groups are equal, makes the promotion of more minorities on television a waste of time with respect to the goal of making them more valued.  If ALL groups are of equal value, then what difference does it make who is on television?  If there is no moral difference between black people and white people, collectivity defined, then who cares if the black person only ever sees white people on TV?  He, as a black person, has the same existential worth as a white person, and vice versa. Thus, there is no reason he shouldn’t identify with the white people he sees on television, and no reason he should think that he will never fully find social value unless he sees other black people.  So, the only way you can consistently argue that minorities need greater representation on television is if there is something inherently wrong the with the majority.  Only by valuing the majority less can we claim that it is valuable to allow the minority to observe his group more on television.  In short, if all groups are morally equal, then all of the distinctions between these groups ultimately become meaningless.  If all groups are of equal social value, then we don’t actually have groups.  We only have individuals.  But that runs utterly contrary to the collectivist metaphysics which drive postmodern—which is really just old fashioned collectivist—philosophy, and therefore that notion is something that will not and cannot be accepted or conceded.  Ever.  Because it demands a rejection of the entire collectivst definition of reality…and that only happens after a nation has collapsed entirely, often washed away in rivers of blood.  Mark my words, there is no salvation for a nation, not even this one, because all governments are inherently collectivist and all of them go the way ours is, socially, just with different group labels.  It WILL collapse under the weight of its own contractions, period.  It is a rational certainty.  This is because without the philosophical premises which inevitably bring about its downfall, it isn’t that nation in the first place.

I don’t like this.  I don’t advocate it.  I’m devastated by it.  But I’m merely the messenger of arrant cause and effect.  They are inexorably bound.  The life of a nation—its collectivist philosophical premises—is its death.

*

Here’s another problem.  Putting more minorities on television in an effort to make minority people feel more valued implies that individuals identifying primarily with the group is a good thing.  But if this is the case, why would white people want less white people on television in deference to greater minority representation? If identifying oneself primarily with the group is the means by which people are truly valued socially, then why would we expect white people to specifically reject this notion by advocating for that which diminishes white people identifying with their group?  If group identification is good, then why should white people want less of it?

The answer by now should be obvious.  Because white people are not good.  It’s only good to identify with one’s group IF one is not in the majority.  IF one is not white, THEN group identification is good…so goes the syllogism.  Whiteness is majority, and vice versa.  The majority is an illegitimate group because it, by definition, oppresses the minority.

And here’s the kicker.  The majority never gets to be the minority.  Because this is the root of collectivist metaphysics.  Collectivist metaphysics denies the reality of the individual entirely.  And thus, the “majority group” which oppresses the “minority group” has absolutely nothing to do with math.  That is, it has nothing to do with how many individuals happen to be in the majority relative to the minority group.  “Majority” and its primary characteristic, “whiteness”, is NOT a number.  It is a metaphysical identity. Whiteness is absolute, and it is majority, and it is evil because it oppresses the minority.  And therefore, even just one white person alone embodies the entirety of the collective metaphysical identity of “majority” and “whiteness” (the two being corollary).  The only way to reduce the majority and thus bring about social justice is to end whiteness.  And to end whiteness is in practicality to end white individuals.

Yes, it’s madness.  But it is the philosophy of the postmodern left.  Which is nothing more than the garden variety, mass-murdering collectivism we’ve had ever since man catastrophically decided that the “I” is a function of the “we”.

That is, ever since the beginning of time.

END

 

 

You Want to Know the Real Problem of Evil? You Got It.

Now that we have—by illustrating the rank contradictions which make up its substrata of rationale—dispensed with the theological and logical fallacy of the “Problem of Evil” as presumed by Christian orthodoxy, we can talk about the real problem of evil.

But what do we mean by “evil”?  Well, first, we need a reference.  That is, in order to call something moral or immoral we must reference it to that which can rationally arbitrate ethical value.  Without such a reference, it’s impossible to ascribe a moral label.  So, what’s the reference? The only reference which is rationally consistent is the Individual. Now, please note that in this article I am not going to explicate ethics in detail at the philosophical primary level. You can find that elsewhere on this blog.

I thus define evil this way:

The willful action of one individual which violates another.

Think Old Testament.  Think Ten Commandments.  Stealing, hurting, killing, lying to yourself or others.

Now, there is a subsection of ethics which deals with “acts of nature”, so to speak.  Those incidents where the innocent are subjected to torment, neglect, and death that have nothing to do with the willful acts of other human beings.  Like natural disasters, accidents of poor judgment (e.g. getting lost in the wilderness at night and falling down a steep ravine), or even something like a bridge collapsing.  We can argue that these things are technically violations of human life, and thus may be described as evil.  But I don’t think they fall under the category of a “problem of evil”, unless you consider God the fundamental controller of everything and thus must implicate Him in some way.  But as I explained in my previous article on the subject, this is not really a problem, because it is not actually paradoxical. It’s a contradiction and thus a lie.  So, when we are talking evil, we’ll keep it simple…basic rational ethics a la the Ten Commandments.  Kiling, lying, stealing, and all their various forms (bullying, psychological abuse, manipulation or fraud, etc.). That’s basic rational ethics, and it need not be complicated.  What is complicated is dismantling the fraudulent ethics of irrational philosophies and other various hijacking of reason.  But true ethics is simple, and I would argue, innately understood by all of us as a function of our nature.  This innate understanding of goodness is corrupted by bad philosophies, and specifically bad metaphysics, not unlike those which underwrite governments.  All of them.  Which leads us to the main thesis of this article.

*

Why do people do evil?

Who are the greatest and most prolific and persistent culprits?

The answers to these questions most likely will surprise you, and I can tell you right now that the rest of this article won’t win me any friends, and will likely lose me some. Because the answer to the second question is: you.  And me, in the past.  And the why is this: because we think evil is good.

I must step carefully around this prickly subject. I am not trying to shame anyone.  I am not condemning you to fire and brimstone.  I am not ultimately imprecating the character of friends and family, or even of humanity in general.  I am not saying you ARE evil, because I know that that simply isn’t true.  This is an admonishment to a new thinking, not a condemnation of your soul.  I am aiming to help people to re-evaluate their root assumptions about he nature of man and reality, and to realize that those assumptions are the difference between our lives contributing, on the whole, to sublime morality or the utter abasement of God and the world.  Because no matter how good and reasonable and true and honorable we think we are, our root assumptions—and we all have them—define, ultimately and foundationally, our moral contribution to reality.  And that contribution is either evil or it is good, period.  The question begged, then, is this:  Can a person with evil assumptions who truly believes that these assumptions are good ultimately do good with their life?

I guess I should explain what I mean about “evil assumptions”.  What I mean is assumptions about the nature of man and his relationship to realty which nullifies man’s will, and demands him inadequate, by dint of no less than his very own birth, to existence, itself.  The philosophies in which this is done are varied and copious, and without any rival anywhere in the world I submit, but at root they all share the same theme:  Man is fundamentally controlled by some determinative force outside of himself, be it God, or natural law, or mathematics, or his own “sin nature”, or the Unknown, or evolution, or all of the above, and therefore his will—his sentience and agency—is, at the very foundation of his existential make-up, fraudulent.  Will is an illusion; choice is determined and thus a lie.  Man is incapable of being himself qua himself—there is no such thing.  And thus, for his own good, and to ensure his own real and true existence, his will must be censured, and he forced into “goodness”.  He must be forced to thrive because he cannot do it on his own.  Man speaks as if he is an individual, but this is a function of a root existential error, and his individuality is an illusion at best.  His reality is that he is collectively driven by a single Cause (God, Nature, some other Force), and thus his false sense of self must be oppressed so that his true self—his determined and collective self—can prosper.  He must be forced to thrive—forced into his proper collectivist role—because he simply cannot do it on his own.

*

People committing rank atrocities against their fellow man are easy to spot when the definition of evil is rational.  It is hard for the liar, or thief, or murderer to hide when the ethical context is clear.  They stick out like a dead fly in a glass of milk.  And thus, I don’t consider them, and whatever pathology drives them, be it physiological or behavioral or genetic or whatever, to be the real root of the problem of evil.  The liar lies, the killer kills, and the thief steals.  This is clear.  The real problem evil—of evil which is endemic and pervasive—my friends, is not the evil person, but rather the good one.  That is, real evil is found in the majority…the masses who wish to do good, to save and promote fellow man, but do so from a false assumption. The assumption is this: The only way to get men to behave morally is ultimately to grant a small group of people (or a single person) the power to compel human behavior by violence.

I’m talking, in essence, about government. And the fact that after thousands of years of state-sponsored mass murder, oppression, exploitation, slavery, torture, economic regression, and nepotism, we all still accept that the most moral form of humanity is that in which it is governed.  We accept that by eradicating morality, which destroys choice by forced compliance to legality, which is an entirely different ethic altogether, goodness can be brought about in the world.

It can’t.  It hasn’t.  It won’t.

What is the assumption which guides our moral code, almost to a person?  It is found in the answer to the question: Why government?  The answer is always the same, though in various semantic molds:  Without government, man is doomed.  Left to himself, man’s base natural instincts to oppression, exploitation, and murder will erupt and the earth will be a cauldron of misery…a hell, itself.  That man’s very inherent and natural ability to choose his own actions cannot be trusted.  And choice, dear readers, is the root of what makes a human being a human being.  Absent choice, there is no individual.  And thus, this concession to the necessity of government implies that man IS EVIL, ITSELF.  And that’s why government. That’s why human will must be replaced by obedience to law.

Of course, how the political elite get a pass on their own mendacity and natural depravity is a question that is alway punted into the cosmic abyss of grand Mystery.  The fact is, we are told, that our sense of One Self—of “I”—is by nature false, and our choice thus is the vehicle for our own destruction.  And therefore we must be ruled.  It is the only way to save us.  We must have ourselves forcefully denied so that humanity can survive.

And that is REAL evil.  That idea…right there.

So you shall never get to experience life out from under the unblinking eye of Authority, no matter how benevolent or special or God-ordained that authority is claimed to be.  The Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Pax Romana…it’s force, force, force.  It’s the State, and it means law, and law is the eradication of choice by its nature, and this means the nullification of morality, which means that there is no longer any  consequence for actual evil…because evil becomes not that which violates the individual—YOU or ME—but which violates Law.  Because YOU and ME are a lie, we are told and believe.  So, you will never know what it means to be you, ultimately.  You will never know the freedom of You qua You.  You must always have an overlord, and a cage in which to put you, even though its borders be the size of a continent.  You may have a shadow of freedom, but you will never have it in the flesh.  You will never get to be the real You.  The Self is dead at birth.

And now, right now, you’re telling yourself that I’m a fool…a nut, a radical, a denier of reality, lost, or angry, or irrational, or all of it.  Perhaps you should no longer associate with me, you’re thinking. Perhaps you will unfriend me on Facebook…or perhaps you already have.  I’m a bad influence, a reprobate, a rejector of clear truth.  An arguer, a rebel, a non-compromiser, a denier of God’s sovereignty, a rejector of the empirical, unenlightened, unsaved, a know-it-all, arrogant, and without faith.

Of course we need government, you’re thinking.  Of course we can’t just let people do whatever they want!  That’s complete madness! The death of us all! Idiotic!

Nothing I can say will change your mind. Nothing I can do will cause you to question. I can show you the graves of the millions that government has slaughtered; the starving children ravaged by polical despots who are called the “savior of the people”, the “dear leader”, the “Fuhrer”.  I can show you internment camps and gas chambers and killing fields and nuclear craters and whole cities on fire and severed heads on poles on castle walls and bodies littering the colosseums and the crucifixion of Christ, and all of it a government program, and yet you shall reject the idea that government, and in particular its philosophical roots, might just be the source of the horror. No, in your eyes, I am forever the fool.

And that, my friends…is the problem of evil.

 

 

Solving the “Problem of Evil” from Reason

You’ve heard of the “problem of evil” (henceforth to be written PE)? If not, that’s okay. I will explain it here. Basically the PE is this: in light of God’s sovereign Character, how can we explain the existence of evil in the world? How can an all-powerful and all-loving God create, cause, and allow for evil to exist in the world, and even worse, in such copious amounts and in such terrible forms?

The problem with the PE assertion is that it makes some fundamental assumptions with respect to God and man’s nature and character, and the nature of reality in general, which simply do not stand up to rational scrutiny.  Now, many, if not all of these underlying rational errors, I have dealt with in articles on this blog, probably more than once. But I thought it might be beneficial to write a summary in article form on the false assumptions which lead people to accept the PE as a paradox that has some logical merit and relevance to theological discourse.

It doesnt.

This is by no means a comprehensive synopsis…and, given that it is relatively deep and detailed, this should tell you something.  I submit that the false and arrantly irrational assumptions which underly the PE, in and of themselves, alone, suffice to illuminate with perfect clarity this baseless notion. Unfortunately, with religion it seems that all too commonly rational error and superstition are a boon, not a demerit.

What most immediately and predominately springs to mind as aiding and abetting the idea of the PE is the Biblically absent yet widely accepted notion of humanity’s Total Depravity.

The idea is this: man, because of “The Fall” (a term also Biblically absent) in the Garden of Eden was cursed with a pervasive “sin nature”.  This means that existentially man cannot help but sin.  In fact, man, by his very birth IS SIN, for all intents and purposes.  Everything he does in his natural state is from evil  He cannot understand, and thus cannot choose nor do anything that isn’t evil at root.  And though the Church can often be seen equivocating most hypocritically the idea that a totally depraved reprobate who is infinitely wicked by nature is still somehow morally responsible for his actions, the fact remains that ALL of Christian orthodoxy asserts either plainly or implicitly that man—and even those who are saved by Christ are often featured in this assessment—MUST sin, and WILL sin.  It is a forgone conclusion from birth, period, full stop. And though I have heard many times Christain apologists and theologians attempt, in cringe-inducing fashion, to explain how a TOTALLY depraved human being is not actually totally depraved, the fact is that, according to their own arguments, it is impossible for them to describe just where in the singularity of one’s individuality evil ceases and good begins.  Thus, I submit that this whole convoluted and disastrous notion of Total Depravity contributes to the PE in a couple of ways:

If man disobeyed God in the Garden, and this initiated the race’s downfall, and if this was a function of God’s creating man with the ability to disobey, then how is God not ultimately responsible?  How can we absolve God of blame when he specifically and in full control of his divine faculties created man with the distinct ability to wreck himself and all of creation along with him by doing evil, and this in perfect keeping with his normal operation?  That is, the ability of man to choose evil was not a design error.  It was a part of his proper construction and function.  So…can we really blame the machine for simply doing what the maker designed it to do in the first place?

Next, does not the fact that after the Fall man becoming wholly determined to sin imply that man has made it impossible for God to abolish evil…since every man born MUST by nature do evil?  Indeed, is not every man’s birth post-Fall an act in and of itself of evil—by definition of the pervasive sin nature which utterly and existentially defines him? And if we argue that God can, in fact, abolish evil by destroying all of mankind, is this not an admission that the Maker has failed in his creation? That the perfect God has created out of Himself that which is inherently imperfect by virtue of its innate ability to sin? Even the act of sending a Savior to redeem man implies a contradiction stemming from the Total Depravity of a failed creature that somehow corrupted the Perfect God’s perfect universe by simply exercising a divinely created, divinely-willed, and divinely-intended freedom of choice. For how can he whose very birth is an act of evil because of the categorical nature of his root existential wickedness and who is unable to see the Truth and accept God’s Provision except when enlightened by God’s Spirit, and this entirely of God’s doing, possibly be converted from darkness to light? In other words, how can God make Good, Evil? What is A cannot be made B without contradicting A and thus contradicting B. That is, Evil cannot be made Good without rendering both concepts entirely subjective, barren of any inherent objective meaning and value. In other words, God cannot make evil good just like He cannot make a square a circle without destroying both concepts…and thus He contradicts His ability to create those concepts in the first place.

Other irrational assumptions which underly the PE have to do with the commonly accepted Divine Characteristics: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Now, I have dismantled these in previous articles, detailing how they are in fact inherent contradictions which destroy God’s identity by ascribing to Him attributes which wreck any distinction between Himself and His Creation. A God who can do anything can, by definition, BE anything; and a God who can be anywhere IS everywhere; and a God who knows everything must determine everything. And thus, the only conclusion to be drawn is that there is nothing that God ultimately isn’t, nowhere that He isn’t, and no act that he doesn’t. And in this context, God becomes utterly non-relative.  That is, since there is nowhere that God ends and His Creation begins, the distinction is ruined and God’s very identity with it. In short, the false paradox of the PE is asserted via these Divine Characteristics as follows:

How can a God who basically knows everything and controls everything and is everything and determines everything NOT be responsible FOR everything, including all of the evil He claims He hates?

To conclude, the simple answer to the problem of evil is this:

It is rooted in assumptions that are rank, object, and arrant contradictions, and thus all of these assumptions must be rejected as impossible. Man, being a rational creature, and one who relies upon the conformity of his concepts to rational consistency in order to define and navigate reality, must stop pretending that claims to divine enlightenment and salvation is but an ideological and fanatical commitment to madness over reason; to ignorance and foolishness as the Most Noble Virtue; and to superstition over Truth.

In mathematics, if the numbers do not properly sum, then the equation is in error and reworked or discarded. In science if the empirical evidence is not forthcoming then proof is not accepted or asserted. And in philosophy—and the theological is inexorably philosohical—if the syllogism nullifies the concepts from which it is constructed then it is false, and no truth can be derived. We must throw it out and start again with new assumptions that are rationally consistent and thus can lead to meaningful and useful conclusions.

The fact is that there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. It’s a contrivance from ignorance or willful deception, and must be dismantled and condemned as such. It presumes a definition of God that renders “God” a null hypothesis. That is, it makes God a contradiction in terms, and thus it demands that there can be no such thing. It pretends that an All-Powerful God can willfully create that which is contrary to both that power and his very Self. The solution then to the problem of evil is to reject it for the distraction from the truth that it is.

In my next article then, I will discuss what the world’s moral problem really is, and how evil contributes.