Liberalism and the Cult of Personal Opinion

Liberalism and the Cult of Personal Opinion

In talking to ordinary people who have embraced Liberalism knowingly or unknowingly, I have found a common belief.  The majority seem to have embraced what I call the “cult of personal opinion.”  It seems that they have an opinion on everything; an opinion that is more often than not grounded in nothing but their own minds and reinforced by the information that they have received over the television—a very poor source of information.  We can contribute some of this thinking to arrogance, and I would have to admit I have found this attitude prominent among males, but I think it goes much deeper.  I believe this mindset is rooted in a basic attitude that one has toward knowledge and truth

I believe that this attitude toward knowledge can be traced to the philosophy called Liberalism and two of the principles espoused by that philosophy.  The first of these principles is the belief in the autonomy or self-governing of the individual.  This principle basically says, that there is no authority outside of the individual that he must submit to.  What does this doctrine do to the individual?  It causes him to look within for knowledge instead of looking to authorities outside of himself.  After all, if the truth is within, why look outside for it?  It also instills in the individual a rebellious hubris spirit, which tends to cause him to rebel against anything or anyone that he views to have authority over him.  This is especially evident in his attitude toward religion, schools, and government.  I believe this is one of the reasons that many young males drop out of school.

Now here is the problem.  All of human knowledge is both individual and corporate.  All disciplines have a body of knowledge that has been built over a period of time which forms the authority of that discipline.  Without this body of knowledge an individual would not have a discipline or an authority to draw on.  In fact, even language must have an authority that people can appeal to as a source beyond themselves.  We call that authority a dictionary.

But what happens when people begin to question all authority and the individuals became an authority unto themselves?  The answer is educational anarchy or the dumbing down of the entire culture.  In order for education to take place, there must be a sense of authority (respect) for the body of knowledge that is being studied and submission to that authority.  In fact, a case can be made that every discipline that has accepted the Liberal doctrine of the autonomy of the individual has ended in or is on the road to anarchy.  In philosophy, it has led to relativism and idealism.  In science, it has led to positivism.  All of these “isms” represent the denial of true knowledge and rebellion against the authority of true knowledge.

The second doctrine of Liberalism that has infected reason and learning is the doctrine of egalitarianism, which in short is the equality of all men.  Before I point out how the Liberal view of this doctrine has corrupted education and learning in general, let me point out that Liberals have no grounds on which to make this claim and in the end have proven that they really do not believe it.  Can Liberals rationally demonstrate from nature that all men are equal?  No!   So, where does this idea come from? It simply is a part of the Liberal faith that they infer as a self-evident truth.  But the concept of a self-evident truth sounds more like a religious revelation than a reasonable fact.  The truth is that the equality of mankind is a Christian truth that is based on the scriptural doctrine (revelation) that all men are created in the image of God, However, the Christian belief in the equality of men is much different than the liberal one. For the Christian, equality among men is their standing with God and his law.

Liberals have taken their egalitarianism (all are equal) to such an extreme that they have begun to even question parents having authority over their children. Children are now equal to parents.  Link this with their questioning of authority, and what do you have?  Children who question their parents’ authority and believe that they know more than their parents.  But it does not stop there.  Those who embrace Liberalism also question the authority of their teachers.  The unpinning attitude (a Liberal one) is that children should not be required to learn anything, for this would invalidate their autonomy.  They should be left to themselves to learn what they want to learn.  There should be no outward force (authority) to compel them to learn.  This is the educational system of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the fathers of Liberalism.  His ideas on education are set forth in his book Emile.  Like the majority of true Liberals, he believed educational institutions are a part of the bourgeois that corrupts children rather than teaching them.  His disdain for traditional schools and the traditional teacher-student relationship is found in every chapter of his book.  Excuse my vulgarity, but he was a nut.  If you don’t believe me, listen to what one of his lovers, Sophe d’ Houdetot, said about him.  “He was ugly enough to frighten me, and love did not make him more attractive.  But he was a pathetic figure, and I treated him with gentleness and kindness.  He was an interesting madman.”  (My emphasis)  It is this madman’s thinking that many Liberal educators hold as the paradigm of the modern education system.  It is no wonder that our schools are failing.

But now let us return to the subject of education and equality.  The doctrine of egalitarianism, when taken to the extreme, reinforces the questioning and the weakening of the authority of teachers and scholars by putting the student on an equal plane with the teacher.  Not only does this diminish the authority of the teacher, but it also diminishes the authority of knowledge itself.  If everyone is equal why should I listen to any man?  My opinion is as good as anyone else.  How many times have you heard in a discussion with people of a lesser degree of knowledge that their opinion was as good as yours?  That may be true if we are talking about matters of opinion and not matters of fact.  The problem is that Liberalism in its more vulgar form has led people to the place where they cannot discern matters of opinion from matters of fact.  For most, everything is a matter of opinion.

If everyone is equal, the scholar’s and the teacher’s knowledge is no better than the students.  In fact, maybe we should do away with the teachers altogether and call everyone students.  This would surely help the students’ self-esteem and make them feel good and equal to the teacher.  They could share their knowledge as equals.  We would not want the student to feel inferior to the teachers.  We do not want to hurt their self-esteem.  Of course, we can avoid this by getting the students together and letting them pool their ignorance (knowledge) and out of ignorance and error will come true knowledge.  This is the faith of Liberalism.   This is why our culture is filled with “know-it-alls” that know nothing.  This is the source of the cult of personal opinion, the fastest-growing religion in our culture.

But even worse is the general dumbing down that all of this is doing to our culture.  If the knower is no better off than the ignorant, the question then must be raised–why study?  Why study and read factual books?  If there is no truth, why seek the truth?  The smart thing to do is just question all knowledge and all authority.  Questioning and doubting then becomes the goal of education.  The perception then becomes that the educated man is not the man who knows the answers through years of study, but rather the one who doubts and raises questions the most.  In philosophy, we have a name for these endless questioners and doubters.  We call them deconstructionists.  If they are brave enough, they may come to a point where they will begin to doubt their doubts.  However, most will remain ignorant of their ignorance, for to doubt your doubts can only lead to nihilism.  When you believe your doubts, you are no longer a doubter, but rather a believer with a negative faith.  You must learn to doubt your doubts before you can be a true doubter.  Most men don’t have the courage of doubting their doubts.  Doubting your doubts is the very thing Nietzsche chivied his contemporaries for not doing.  He inferred that they did not have the courage to face the conclusion of their doubting.  He believed that if a man did, he would have to commit suicide or go mad.  He chose the latter.  Of course, there is another option, which was just too simple for Nietzsche.  That is simply, to believe.  To believe is to know and to know is to love knowledge and learning.

The New Holocaust-Abortion

The New  Holocaust

In the practice of full-term abortion, we see the death of the liberal conscience that has been seared by its devotion to the god of choice. Its next move will be to eradicate anything or anyone who causes an awakening or pain of conscience. We already see them gathering their forces against Christianity and any other force which might try to convict them of their atrocities. This will be accomplished and has already started in some countries by the destruction of free speech. At least free speech by dissenters who will expose their monstrous endeavors.

The new mantra of the left is “I don’t believe in abortion but I support choice”. In such remarks we see individual choice being elevated to a higher place than life in our nation’s value system and becoming the absolute criteria for morality. A similar idea must have been held by the Nazi guards that were moving the Jews to the gas chamber. Their delusion allowed them to believe that they were doing something in the name of the higher good. In this, they could  continue to believe that they were righteous even in the face of the terrible evil they were doing. Similar, the  German people knew what was going on in the death camp’s but denied it or ignored it as long it was  hidden and not happening to them. We all need to remember that the Holocaust was an example of doing evil under the cloak of doing good.

The New Atheist and the Social Justice Movement

The New Atheist and the Social Justice Movement

New Atheists. “These are attitudes masquerading as ideas, emotional commitments disguised as intellectual honesty”.[1]

What is the source of the new atheist movement?  The new atheist movement is an offshoot of the social justice movement which came to the forefront in America after 911.  However, its roots can be traced back to a number of intellectual and political influences.  These influences include social Marxism, postmodernism and critical theory all of which were planted in the United States after World War II by European scholars who migrated here after the war.  A number of movements can be traced to these roots, e.g. the social justice movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement and the libertarian[2] movement and yes, the new atheist movement, all of which can be traced to the Frankfurt school in Germany and to what is now called social Marxism.  The thing that all these movements have in common is their hatred of power and authority or should I say someone else’s power and authority.[3]

Postmodernism and critical thinking teach that all power structures are basically oppressive and therefore, need to be destroyed.  These power structures include the family, religion, especially Christianity and government.  Of course, they fail to see that the university itself is a power source linking them to the very thing they criticize.  They also fail to consider that these power structures they are so critical of were part of the systems which allowed and fostered the development of civilization and without these structures, it is doubtful that humankind would have advanced as far as it has.  The parasitical college professors who came up with postmodernism and critical thinking, would not have had the leisure time to develop their theories if it was not for the power structures that they are now condemning.

Postmodernism and modernism both share two basic errors that center in their view of human nature.  One is that human nature is a black slate and the second is that man is basically good.  The blank slate people believe that there is no basic operating system in the human mind.  Therefore, humans are totally controlled by their environment.  The keyword is totally.  In other words, according to this view humanity has no nature.  Everything is socially created by one’s culture and the institutions of that culture[4].  Free will is an allusion and all institutions are created to maintain the power of the ruling class.  Therefore, all institutions are oppressive.

Of course, the glaring question is, how can you have an inherently good nature if you don’t have an operating system that directs your nature into natural goodness?

At this point, we begin to see a divide between modernism and postmodernism.  For the postmodern, man is a blank slate and everything is socially created, if so, then the concept of good and evil can only be a social construct for the benefit of the oppressors.  Of course, religion and Government are the institutions used to foster this construct using the tools of morality and law.  The logic of this is that government and religion being forms of oppression must be destroyed.  This clearly seems to be the case with Carl Marx.  Marx believed that when communism reached its completion or perfection, there would be no need for religion or government to control the people.  Of course, all of this was based on the dubious doctrine of progressive evolution and Nietzsche’s idea that the will to power is the chief motivating force in human beings.  The truth is that human beings are motivated by numerous attitudes and emotions.

It is here that we begin to see the beginning of the social justice movement that in turn gave birth to the new atheist movement.  Both movements are grounded in Marxism and its attacks on religion.  The early Marxists attempt to use the state to destroy religion failed.  So, the new Marxists are attempting to use atheism to create the brave new world of Marxism.  If the new atheists destroy religion, there is no place for atheism to go other than complete communism.  It was atheism that gave rise to Marxism and communism, not the other way around.

One of the seeds of postmodernism is the false belief of modernism, which is that man is basically good and if left alone will evolve into an angelic being,  who can live by pure reason.  In this rational, you can hear the whisper of postmodernism and the noble savage who symbolizes humanity’s innate goodness, which is one of the false narratives and myths of modernism.

Most thoughtful people have come to realize that western civilization is under attack from many sides.  Its institutions are being assaulted by feminists, socialists, Marxists, globalists, the new atheist movement and the Libertarian movement.  All of these leftist movements have a number of things in common.  They are deconstructionists that want to destroy what now exists so it can be replaced with something new.  In this, they want to destroy or change the institution of family, religion and government.  In contrast, you have the conservative movement that believes that these institutions are a part of the natural order and should be maintained.  The conservative movement does not believe these institutions are perfect, and if possible, they should be improved.  However, they do not believe that they can be perfected because human nature at its base level cannot perfect anything.

The bottom line is that the new atheist movement is more of a social movement that has created attitudes and emotions that are the driving force of the movement.  This, of course, is the very opposite of what the new atheists believe about themselves.  They fancy themselves as intellectual and progressive in their social views when, in reality, they are nothing more than the products of cultural and intellectual brainwashing.  They have deified the attitude and emotions of rebellion similar to that of the French Revolution.  They are angry at the human condition because it is a threat to their comfort, ease and pleasure.  They are the adult version of the spoiled child and they feel like victims of a meaningless life.

[1] Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies Hart, David Bentley

[2] The libertarian movement has many different degrees. Here I am talking about the far left that hides in their ranks.

[3] Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen Hicks

[4] This includes gender.

The Myth of Multiculturalism, How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

The Myth of Multiculturalism

How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

Every culture on the face of the earth has its identifying traits and it is those identifying traits that make it a culture.  If you change those identity traits you change the existing culture and if you change enough of those distinctive traits, you actually destroy the culture by turning it into something other than the culture you started with.

There are a number of threats to true multiculturalism today.  One of them is radical individualism, which is tied to the philosophy of liberalism, and the second one is globalization, which is coming from or has its roots in, global capitalism.  Both, in turn, have led to increased centralized planning, in order for large multinational companies to gobble up the world’s capital.  This centralized planning has led to an increasingly larger government.  This bigger government believes that it can manipulate numerous societies to create a one-world empire and culture.  The problem with all of this is that its’ promoters fail to see that the individual gets their identity and sense of selfhood from their culture. Their cultures are based not on their similarities with other cultures, but on their differences.  If you remove the differences, you take away the very soul of the individuals who make up those cultures.   When a people lose their identity or sense a threat to their identity they will suffer an existential emptiness brought about by the loss of that distinct uniqueness and identity.  Over time, this loss of identity will in turn lead to social unrest.

True multiculturalism is the world the way it is with all its different cultures, its borders and its nations.  The expression ‘multiculturalism’ as used today is a ‘melting pot’, which is the very opposite of multiculturalism.  The corrupt use of this word represents the globalist’s last effort to destroy true multiculturalism and to replace it with uniformity (political correctness).  The world with all of its diversity is simply the way it has to be in order for it to be truly multicultural.  In fact, it seems that it has evolved that way, which means that it is natural, and you cannot fool mother nature for very long without experiencing her wrath.  However, modern man, especially those of the west and on the left, seem to believe that they can change human nature.  Some even go so far as to say that man has no nature thereby expressing the blank slate theory of human nature.  Nevertheless even they have created a new culture, or cult, which could be called the ‘culture of nobody or nothing’. A cult that is already causing havoc in the west.

The way to have real multiculturalism is simply to leave things alone, to leave them the way they were created by nature and the Creator, which seems to be extremely hard for the Western intellectual myth-makers who think of themselves as the saviors of the world.  These intellectuals, since the time of the enlightenment, have been spewing out their nonsense with lesser men gobbling up their vomit.

One of the best arguments against the myth of multiculturalism is the very country that people use for an example of multiculturalism, that is the USA.  America is referred to as a melting pot. Even the metaphor itself is a contradiction to multiculturalism. The metaphor points to many cultures becoming something other than any one of them, as they melt together:  The many become one.  However, the premise that they become one if they melt together itself, is questionable.  If you have a subculture that refuses to meld in, it will become the source of many social problems that can weaken a culture.  And if a culture that resists assimilation gets large enough, it will actually become the culture. The parasite consumes its host.

It has been said that Rome united the world through its multiculturalism.  However, it also divided the world.  It is a known fact that when Rome invaded other nations,  they would remove its ruling class and many of the lesser classes and bring in foreign immigrants.  They knew that this would weaken the culture and help prevent rebellion.  I’m sure you’ve heard the statement that “diversity is our strength,” well; Rome had diversity and diversity did not save it from decay and complete collapse.  We could gather from this that our national leaders today are either ignorant of this, or they are attempting to control the masses and weaken them by dividing them and pitting them against each other.  Either way these leaders are pathetic.