Weekly Think Piece
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imagine No Right or Wrong
Much
has been said from the starboard side of the bloggesphere on the lack of
awareness college students have about the reality of the world today - in
particular, the Islamist threat. The liberal left has infiltrated the
educational system in this country and has produced a generation of politically
correct multiculturalists unable to think logically and rationally. The prime
reason is that a liberal feels and a conservative thinks. So the primary
response from a liberal is always an emotional one based on 'feeling' not
logic.
Several
days ago I had a chance to actually see the mechanisms of the modern college
students' mind as it wrestled with the contradictions between reality and
multiculturalism. I had the usual discussion with her as the anti-Islamists
bloggers and commentators do in expressing their opinion and she stood by her
multicultural belief and saw me only as a bigot for condemning all Muslims for
the actions of a few radicals. I tried to explain to her that the 'few' are
many more than she thinks and, in my opinion, the vast number of Muslims in the
world may not agree with the methods of the violent jihadists but do agree with
their objectives. I gave her several examples of the intimidation, infiltration
and disinformation tactics used by the non-violent jihadists today in order to
enlighten her to the threat to our civilization.
The
depth of her misunderstanding, or blindness to reality, came when I tried to
use an example of how moderate Muslims agree with the tenants and objectives of
their belief system by their reaction to the Mohammed cartoon controversy. I
thought for sure she would see this as a crystal clear example of how tens of
thousands of moderate Muslims around the world rioted and killed over something
as silly as a dozen cartoons.
Didn't
this prove that a very large number of Muslims can not, or will not, live in a
21st century dominated by free cultures? Her response was quit
enlightening. She said people riot over silly things all the time. Drunken
students sometime riot after football games at her college if their team loses.
The behavior of the rioting students and the rioting Muslims were equivalent.
They both were upset for whatever reason. And though she did not condone the rioting
of either party, she understood their anger. Their reaction was equivalent.
When
I asked her if the rioting students at her college burned down the opposing
team's stadium, demanded that the opposing college apologize for their win, the
football coach fired and death threats put out on the opposing players, and
that the rioting Muslims were demanding that free societies self-censor
themselves and bury the concept of freedom of the press and free speech - she
just walked away.
This
incident only reinforced my belief that we will never convince the appeasers
and apologist of the Islamist threat and even when it becomes crystal clear
that they intend to kill even them, the majority will respond with
self-preservation - but will not like it.
Why?
Because
they will always, ALWAYS, hold the belief that we did not do enough, to do
whatever, to prevent the conflagration that forced them into a survival mode.
Their secular belief of multiculturalism is as much a religion as our
traditional ones. But their belief system fails on another count. They can not
accept the concept of right and wrong and good or evil. They live in a world of
relativity where every belief system is morally equivalent. This belief makes
them impotent when faced with pure evil or a culture that does not respect any
of the traditions of a freedom loving society where human rights and personal
freedom trumps theocratic law.
So
when they are eventually faced with the reality of self-preservation, they do
not accept the fact that we are right and the enemy is wrong. They merely
believe that if we win, it is because our civilization was stronger, harsher
and more barbaric than the enemy. Many on the Left still debate the use of the
atomic bomb on Japan
believing it was an inhuman act that we should apologize for.
Like
all enemies to democracies in the past, the enemy today is an ideology in this
clash of civilizations and that ideology, not terrorism, is to be defeated
wherever it's found. To the appeasers and apologists of this ideology and
secular faith of multiculturalists, the final victory does not affirm anything.
Just that we, if we win, are better at killing the enemy than he is of us.
Not
that our ideology is better than theirs and should be destroyed based on
universal human values, but that we won because we were the most brutal. If
that was the case, we would have kept Japan
and Germany
in the primitive state we reduced their countries to. But we didn't. Why? The
Allied leaders knew that the war was not against a nation but against an ideology
that had hijacked those nations. Because we fought to defeat an ideology that
had hijacked their culture and once the ideology was defeated and outlawed and
it's supporters jailed, we rebuilt their nations.
You
can't win an argument with a multiculturalist based on the higher concepts of
right and wrong, good and evil. They will twist and turn words to mean
something else or accuse you of seeing the world only in black and white.
But
I have a solution.
Let's
not begin by arguing higher values. Let's talk about the basics. Let's build an
argument that pulls morals, values, good, evil, and religious beliefs out of
the equation. That is, let's argue a case in a language the Left, or
Progressives as they like to known, can understand - a secular language. Let's
build an argument that affirms something and build it on science. And one of
the very basic laws of science is the three laws of thermodynamics - or the
laws of entropy.
Without
getting technical, the three laws are:
- You can't win
- You can't break even
- You can't leave the game
But
there is another side to the universe that works against entropy and that's' syntropy.
Syntropy was a word invented by Buckminster Fuller and it is the direct
opposite of entropy. While entropy runs things down, syntropy build things up.
The main driver of syntropy is life - living systems - which contests the
entropy of the physical world by creating order and designs of ever more
advantageous and orderly patterns for growth. That which supports growth is
syntropic. That which supports destruction is entropic. Those beliefs and
actions that are advantageous to the advancement of life are syntropic. Those
that are not are entropic. That which creates environments for creativity like
personal freedom is syntropic. That which stunts personal freedom is entropic.
Syntropy is good for human beings. Entropy is not. What's right for entropy is
wrong for syntropy.
Or
to quote Lazarus Long, that long-lived character in Robert Heinlein's book Time
Enough for Love.
Throughout
history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this
norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely
small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed
by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from
creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then
slip back into abject poverty.
This
is known as "bad luck."
The
argument to use against the relativists of multiculturalism is that everything
that stunts the expression of free thought and creativity should be fought
against. This includes personal freedoms, equality, and the right to practice
ones beliefs as long as it does not restrict the freedoms of others.
That's
an argument that the Progressives can not ignore.
| 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment