You do not sway public opinion by threats, lies, manipulation, or appeals to abstract standards of morality like “common good” or “the unprivileged”, you merely acclimate people to the reality of their imminent sacrifice to State power.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Reason Demands that Truth is Relative
Absolute truth, or Truth qua Truth, is a tautology (and this is true of all abstract concepts when they are said to be a function of themselves), which makes it a contradiction, which means that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which means that all truth then is subject to a reference; and this fact makes truth subjective.
Which means that truth then, and obviously, cannot be objective. On the other hand, the thing which IS objective is truth’s reference.
So…what is the reference?
Well, truth’s reference is he who is asking the question–what, how, why, which, where, etc.. Put another way, it is the Oberver; or, he who is perceiving and then conceptualizing the distinction between himself and NOT himself–or I vs. Environment. This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Percieves from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.
Without this primary, you simply cannot have truth. But it’s more than simply having it, the epistemological primary must be defined reasonably. That is, he who claims to apprehend, to have or know truth, must be defined without contradiction; without indecision; without subjective or rationally unverifiable claims. Without this epistemological primary, defined according to unyielding rational consistency, there can be nothing which is True.
And, naturally, nothing which is false.
In other words, when you have properly, reasonably, answered the question “What is man and how does he know what he knows?”, then, and only then, will you have Truth.
An Argument to Consider: “Punishment” Serves No Practical Purpose; it is Violence for the Sake of Violence; it is Not Justice, nor is it Habilitative or Rehabilitative or Redemptive (Audio version–with brief Punisher/Daredevil comparison at the end)
Their Niavete is NOT Why the Little Children are Special to Jesus
Belief without question, slavish following, and blind obedience to an ideal without regard to rational and moral consistency is NOT a virtue.
And it never will be.
Enter the sermon on “Jesus and the Little Children” I heard yesterday at the ignominious Easter service I suffered through wherein Jesus admonishes those who would seek to prevent the children from coming to Him and seeking His comfort and countenance to let them come, and declares it theirs, these precious little ones, the Kingdom of Heaven.
And enter the obligatory explication wherein it is explained that the reason why Jesus holds children in such high esteem is the cheapness of their faith.
We are told, you see, that what makes children so righteous and so venerated by the Divine is the fact that they lack even basic rational discernment. That it is their arrant innocence OF REASON AND OF DISCERNMENT which makes them such spiritual gems.
And enter then the glaring implication that the problem with adults is that they have the temerity to ask for proof, and to expect sensible rationales; and require time and space to ponder and vet the hundreds of ideas which come their way, seemingly on a daily basis. That it is this grown up, and so very SELFISH and ARROGANT sense of entitlement to ideological integrity and rational consistency which prevents them from having the pureness of faith God so cherishes, and the unflinching loyalty to His heavenly Command He so appreciates.
You see, the deft ability of adults to doubt is why they are on the wrong side of the bell curve when it comes to moral purity and divine favor.
So we are told.
And of course we are.
Because, you see, to a people who have become so comfortable in their doctrinal contradictions that they literally cannot expend one breath when preaching or teaching without uttering one, the adult expectation of reason and responsibility to logical consistency and evidentiary substance is a moral and epistemological violation of mortal consequence.
And this is why the church is dead. And why it is a cult of death; where denial is practiced and self-loathing is the prime moral obligation. And why it has exchanged reason for madness, and the truth for a a lie, and God for the Devil. And it has not only been banished from the Garden but has turned, and out of pure spite burned the bridge over the moat and built a wall across the path.
Sigh.
Children and their faith aren’t special to Jesus because they’ll believe without blush any load of crap some adult feeds them. They and their faith are special to Him because they do not doubt their individuality; and they understand inherently that they are unique, autonomous, and priceless, as a function of their very existence. They are BORN knowing the Truth of the Self. They have not yet been spiritually wrecked by the demonic lie of collectivism.
Someone cannot be called privileged who is not experiencing privilege as HE or SHE defines it, not you, or me, or any demagogue or politician or pastor or priest or parent or sibling or spouse or anarchist or devil or angel or hobo or celebrity or stranger.
The Marxist Lie of “White Privilege”
In order to acknowledge “white privilege” one has to make the individual human being an extension of a concept. In this case “white”. Since “white” absent the individual can have no inherent existence, and certainly no meaning, it is impossible to claim that anyone can be “white”…as though “white” has some kind of power in itself to determine an individual’s existence. White is a function of the individual, not the other way around. Thus, no one can be born OF WHITE; which means no one can be born with some kind of endemic advantage simply because they fall into a conceptual category. This IS Marxism–that you are a function of the group–the “whites”–and thus, your existence is defined by it. With respect, this is utter horse shit. It is rational bankruptcy.
Also, and more obviously, not every white person in the world is privileged. But to claim “white privilege” is to claim ipso facto and BY DEFINITION that all people born white ARE automatically privileged. This is so clearly false I cannot believe anyone takes it seriously.
Moreover, and most importantly, “privileged” is a subjective term. I don’t concede the definition–which I am not rationally nor morally obligated to do–thus, I do not concede “white privilege” exists. Clearly, Rachel Dolezal did not consider it a privilege to be born white.
And do we mean biologically white? Or only those who self-identify as white have such privilege?
Ah…but we never got around to that discussion because the Marxists hoards became too distracted, like a dog fetching a ball, with banning symbols instead examining their own anthropological, biological, and philosophical premises. How typical. You cannot keep a Marxist engaged for long when massive state force abounds just begging to be unleashed upon those with whom they disagree.
What Makes America So Fascinating is Also What Makes it So Terrifying
What makes America so fascinating and terrifying? Here’s one thing:
Literally within the span of a couple of weeks we go from a national dialog on the nature of race and how it is defined by individuals as an expression of their own personal self-identification; a dialog which had the potential of radically changing the very root philosophy with respect to race, most likely to the benefit of ALL human beings everywhere–that is, a rejection of collectivist anthropology which can only divide, never reconcile individuals–to what we have today. Which is this: a seedy, obtuse, collectivist demagoguery of the issue altogether, and the feral, mindless, intellectually inhibited demand that the government use its overwhelming physical force to ban public displays of patently subjective symbols and implicitly morally blackmail private retailers into likewise banning said symbols.
This does two things, neither of which are remotely edifying, and neither of which do anything except lead ALL races down the primrose path of blind, zero-sum philosophy to inevitable misery and destruction at the hands of an absolute central Authority which destroys humanity for destruction’s sake alone. The first is that it eschews rational dialogue–that is, reason–for rank violence (state force) as the ultimate (and thus only legitimate) moral imperative; and second, it drives a wedge of animosity and distrust between a large segment of US denizens and their “representative” government.
Naturally, and predictably, this is the tragedy that never makes it into the public consciousness. And why should it? Guns and sophism have always been more effective at changing the world than reason and thought. It’s what we are most comfortable with. And just as Huxley predicted, comfort bought with the currency of murder and oppression is the only real mark of “existence” when we concede the nihilist consequences of an irrational metaphysic: Since man is not of himself, he does not own himself
Would it be Inappropriate to Suggest That the Charleston, SC Shooting is Just Too Convenient?
I suppose it is merely a coincidence that just as the “racial identity” conversation regarding white NAACP chapter president, Rachel Dolezal, (who successfully masqueraded as black for several years), was getting interesting, with the potential of philosophically redefining all racial politics in this country, we get the Charleston, SC shooting. A shooting which comes complete with a young, white, blond-haired, male, uber-racist, bearing a frightening, psychotic, kill-em-all scowl, a seething racist “manifesto”, and a portfolio absolutely buxom with Confederate-flag-waving scenes…a vault of hateful images to rival even the most prolific of Ku Klux Klan propagandists. And I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the conversation has now shifted back to the same old, tired, yet dependable, rile-up-the-base demagoguery of arguments concerning public displays of the confederate flag, institutional and systemic racism, and gun control.
Yes…I’m sure I’m way off base thinking that there is anything more here than what the news is telling me
On “Profanity”
There is no such thing as inherently good or bad words. If you act from a rational philosophy, one which by its reason assumes and abides the inherent moral worth of each individual human being and maintains the inalienable right of each individual to own and prosper his or her own life, then all of your words are good words. And if you act from a philosophy which is not rational and by its irrational assumptions and/or conclusions denies the inherent morality of man and thus denies his right to self ownership and prosperity then all of your words are bad words
Comment Moderation
Hi, all! Sorry for not mentioning this sooner, but just FYI I have adopted a policy of moderating ALL comments. So…don’t take it personally!
Love you all,
Zach (Argo)
unreformingtheology 