The Gatekeepers of the Mainsteam Media are Oppressing the People
Brilliant Overton Window ExplanationDuke Conan
The media is the enemy of the people. They are elitist. This form of social tyranny must come to an end.
Postmodernist Depravity and the Normalization of Pedophilia
The demise of Western Civilization: "Gender fluidity" as a harbinger for Postmodernist Hell
(Zoya Klebanova, Sott.net) - Traditional values refers to those beliefs, moral codes, and social mores that are passed down from generation to generation within a culture, subculture or community. Their subject matter usually includes that of family, community, religion, and art. And, although each culture has its own definition of traditional values, there appear to be universal principles that are based on experience, and that were created in order to maintain the integrity of societies comprised of a wide range of people with different personalities and interests and to prevent a descent into social chaos.
Taking it further, this visceral knowledge is, at least in part, shaped by evolution. It is also shaped by various psychological and psychopathological phenomena via the interaction between our subjective consciousness - individually and as a species - and the 'real world' throughout time.
Essentially, since the dawn of man people understood that human behavior could attract or repel "the wrath of the gods".
"It appears that in earlier history, man understood that he had some control over his own destiny and the fate of society through his righteous behavior. Theoxeny was a moral standard. Every person was seen as having the potential to either help or hinder prosperity and health for all. Even if some could give more than others, everyone had the privilege and the duty to contribute their best. Every person's actions counted and their actions were responded to with justice through other people and the universe.On May 17, 2016, the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced to the Parliament of Canada "an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16)":
But a pathology took hold, and though it could not completely change the nature of man or take away his ability to choose, it influenced society and altered humanity's course because of our acceptance of it. As awareness declined, good intentions were subverted and our integrity as a species diminished. Humans have become a species tuned in to entropy, and what we choose and express will become our fate. We have given up our personal responsibility to each other as hosts and guests and therefore will end up being our own destruction."
"The bill is intended to protect individuals from discrimination within the sphere of federal jurisdiction and from being the targets of hate propaganda,[3] as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression. The bill adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person's gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.[4]Simply put, Canadians who disavow gender theory could be charged with hate crimes, fined, jailed, and compelled to undergo anti-bias training when Bill C-16 passes.
"A bill meant to enshrine the rights of transgender people by adding gender identity and expression to human rights and hate crime laws".
Watch Jordan Peterson's speech at the Senate on many serious problems with Bill C-16.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN3clJBg4h0
Peterson isn't the only one who thinks that this Bill is outrageous. For example, a member of Vancouver's Rape Relief and Women's Shelter says:
"Transgender rights bill threatens 'female-born' women's spaces... If you were born a female, you are doomed."Interestingly enough, even Theryn Meyer, a South African-Canadian political commentator, blogger, YouTuber, cultural critic, and a transgender woman, was compelled to address the Senate and express her concerns over the Bill. According to her, it isn't intended to protect minorities, but instead abuses the Law and the communities it allegedly protects, and all for political gain.
Adding insult to injury, a bill recently passed by the Canadian House of Commons, infamously known as the "Pronoun Bill", and employs vague wording, deems it a federal offense to refuse to address an individual using their "preferred pronouns."
It is shocking to see how Canada, with its long tradition of relative political sanity, has fallen victim to the radical and pathological thinking of Postmodernists. And Canada isn't the only nation to suffer from this malady.
What we are seeing now seems to be the final stages of the gradual implementation of something called the "Overton Window".
"The Overton window is a political theory that describes the range of ideas the public will accept as a narrow "window". According to the theory, an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within that window rather than on politicians' individual preferences. It is named for its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960 - 2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. At any given moment, the "window" includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office."
"Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous outer fringe ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. The idea is that priming the public with fringe ideas intended to be and remain unacceptable, will make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison."Certain policies are gradually being passed in Western democracies in order to manipulate public opinion and make policies that would normally be seen as despicable and unacceptable, acceptable, especially if they are presented as representing "tolerance" and "progressive values".
It appears to be a perfect tool in the hands of pathological types to gradually normalize torture, various forms of moral degeneracy, and even pedophilia. The popularity of people like Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, or movies like Fifty shades of Grey seek to normalize increasingly 'out there' and extreme sexual behaviour, and this process of moral decline in the West seems to be a largely unconscious one.
The bottom line is, the Overton window can be used to legalize anything, including pedophilia. In fact, steps towards that have already been taken:
- Fears Grow Over Academic Efforts to Normalize Pedophilia
- Pedophilia Rights Convention in Baltimore
- Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times' Op-Ed
- Q&A: Rutgers Law Prof Who Says Pedophilia Is Not a Crime
Margo Kaplan - Pedophile Apologist
But what does this have to do with Postmodernism?
Ernest Gellner, in his prescient Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, discusses three ideological positions of our contemporary world which, at the present moment, have been sharpened into weapons of psychological and physical violence: Islamic Fundamentalism, Postmodernist Relativism, and what he terms 'Enlightenment Secular Fundamentalism'. His discussion of Postmodernism, its origins, development, adherents, and practices (if they can be called such) is invaluable and allows the reader to quickly recognize the psychological dilemmas of what are today called the neo-liberal left. Gellner writes:
"Postmodernism is a contemporary movement. It is strong and fashionable. Over and above this, it is not altogether clear what the devil it is. In fact, clarity is not conspicuous amongst its marked attributes. It not only generally fails to practice it, but also on occasion actually repudiates it...One of the most interesting things Gellner has said is this:
The influence of the movement can be discerned in anthropology, literary studies, philosophy... The notion that everything is a 'text', that the basic material of texts, societies and almost anything is meaning, that meanings are there to be decoded or 'deconstructed', that the notion of objective reality is suspect - all this seems to be part of the atmosphere, or mist, in which postmodernism flourishes, or which postmodernism helps to spread...
Postmodernism would seem to be rather clearly in favour of relativism, in as far as it is capable of clarity, and hostile to the idea of unique, exclusive, objective, external or transcendent truth...
[Postmodernism] is a movement which denies the very possibility of extraneous validity and authority. Admittedly, it is specially insistent in this denial, when the contrary affirmation of such external validation comes from fellow-members, non-relativists within their own society... ex-colonial guilt on the other hand inhibit stressing the point to members of other cultures. The absolutism of others receives favoured treatment, and a warm sympathy which is very close to endorsement."
"The relativists-hermeneuticists are really very eager to display their universal, ecumenical tolerance and comprehension of alien cultures. The more alien, the more shocking and disturbing to the philistines, to those whom they deem to be the provincialists of their own society, the better. Very, very much the better, for the more shocking the other, the more does this comprehension highlight the superiority of the enlightened hermeneutist within his own society. The harder the comprehension, the more repellent the object destined for hermeneutic blessing, the greater the achievement, the illumination and the insight of the interpretive postmodernist"which shows how Postmodernist doctrine can eventually lead to the normalization of just about anything, including something as repellent as pedophilia. The more extreme and degrading to the average person and greater society the acceptance is, the more "enlightened" and "progressive" the Postmodernist thinks himself.
Listen to Jordan Peterson and his warning regarding following Postmodernist principles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPojltjv4M0
There is little doubt that Postmodernism and the processes it uses to induce and reinforce "habits of subconscious selection and substitution of thought-data" is simply Nihilism {the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.}. Hervey Cleckley's book Caricature of Love also highlights the fact that, at its root, the "gender fluidity" movement is pure psychopathy in action.
Another seer of our society who saw and attempted to warn us all was Andrew Lobaczewski. From his book Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes):
"During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit marked by injury to individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. {Gender fluidity} Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world view.Speaking of schizoidally impoverished world views...
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual's personality, which causes the latter's behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become (1) zealots for some ideology, (2) religious bigots, (3) materialists, or (4) adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP-lpEOVcmY
In contrast to Western societies, Russia under Vladimir Putin has taken definite steps towards protecting its people from this kind of Postmodernistic filth. Despite Western media propaganda, Russian policies are not aimed at increasing the influence of the Orthodox Christianity or persecuting of gays, but rather making sure that Russian society and the values on which it has been based over countless generations is safeguarded for future generations. Jordan Peterson explains:
"If there are no sacred values, man is a blank slate. Anything whatsoever can be written on a blank slate. If there is a universal human nature, however, some ideas are wrong, and their implementation will result in catastrophe. The evidence is before us, in the form of the millions who were sacrificed to the values of 20th century totalitarians. Everything cannot be simply questioned and re-organized, in a purely rational matter. Thought itself must have its master...To learn about additional examples of Postmodernist depravity, read the following articles by Pierre Lescaudron:
What, therefore, must be sacred, at minimum? The Mother, the Father, and the Individual. It is the duty of each society, and each individual, to respect these figures, in mind, thought, and action. When this is done properly, the great forces of being are kept in equilibrium, and the individual, society, and nature all thrive. Otherwise, hell breaks loose, and swallows the little heavens that could otherwise be found on earth."
- Eradicating beauty: The destruction of art
- Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?
- From Christian faith to nihilistic void
"Life is about growth, but what is 'life' if not the relationships we have with other people, and, therefore, what is growth in life but the growth of our relationships with others. But growth in what way? A combining, perhaps, of those formerly unique private worlds into something greater than the sum of the parts, something that can create or attract a new life or world by the concentration and communalization of those private realities that in themselves do not have the strength or power to do so. In addition, of course, this process would have to involve not just a shared view of reality, but rather one that resonates with an objective reality, or with the greater forces of nature aka broad-scale objective reality creation."
Postmodernism and Anti-truth–and Their Fallacy
By John WyteOctober 19, 2012
Who is the postmodernist? The postmodernists are the “Truly Profound Ones” in society. By way of illustration, consider a passage by literary theorist Geoffrey Hartman:
Because of the equivocal nature of language, even identities or homophones sound on: the sound of Sa is knotted with that of ca, as if the text were signaling its intention to bring Hegel, Saussure, and Freud together. Ca corresponds to the Freudian Id; and it may be that our only ‘savior absolu’ is that of a ca structured like the Sa-significant: a bacchic or Lacanian ‘primal process’ where only signifier-signifying signifiers exist.”
Just copying and typing that wore me out.
This snippet has ALL the trademarks of postmodern thought. It is highly verbose, pompous, comes off as possibly condescending, and incoherent. To a particular type of person, the rather intellectually insecure, postmodernism can appear profound:
“Gee that sounds very complicated. These people must be incredibly brilliant.”Tens of thousands of graduate students have been fooled in this way by people such as Hartman and the master of postmodernism, Jacques Derrida. Serious intellectuals can see through this though. Go track down Michel Foucault’s quote on Derrida.
Foucault, when asked about Derrida’s, said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism):
“He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”Though many are incoherent, it would be a great mistake to dismiss all postmodern thought in this way. Philosopher Richard Rorty (the guy who wants to undermine the parents of students) and literary critic Stanley Fish are lucid writers, and have made substantial claims. Both make the case that there is no objective truth (though I am sure they expect you to believe that statement itself to be true). They hold to an ideology that says that not even science can describe “the world out there.” In a New York Times article, Fish suggested that the rules of science are just as arbitrary as the rules of baseball!
The problem with postmodern theory is that it suffers from the weakness that the holders of the ideology don’t really believe it, as their actions show. When Rorty needs a medical exam, he doesn’t go to a witch doctor, he goes to the medical center. When Fish goes to do an academic lecture, he doesn’t travel by oxcart, he flies by plane! Even the biologist/atheist Richard Dawkins asserts, “Show me a relativist at 30,000 feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite!” Airplanes fly because of objective truths and mathematical calculations that engineers have gotten right.
Even Chesterton wrote about this in his book, Whats Wrong With the World. In his essay titled, “The Medical Mistake” he says:
“A book of modern social inquiry has a shape that is somewhat sharply defined. It begins as a rule with an analysis, with statistics, tables of population, decrease of crime among Congregationalists, growth of hysteria among policemen, and similar ascertained facts; it ends with a chapter that is generally called “The Remedy.” It is almost wholly due to this careful, solid, and scientific method that “The Remedy” is never found. For this scheme of medical question and answer is a blunder; the first great blunder of sociology. It is always called stating the disease before we find the cure. But it is the whole definition and dignity of man that in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease .”He then goes on to say:
“The fallacy is one of the fifty fallacies that come from the modern madness for biological or bodily metaphors. It is convenient to speak of the Social Organism, just as it is convenient to speak of the British Lion. But Britain is no more an organism than Britain is a lion. The moment we begin to give a nation the unity and simplicity of an animal, we begin to think wildly. Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a centipede. This has produced, for instance, the gaping absurdity of perpetually talking about “young nations” and “dying nations,” as if a nation had a fixed and physical span of life.”He makes an important point here:
“Now we do talk first about the disease in cases of bodily breakdown; and that for an excellent reason. Because, though there may be doubt about the way in which the body broke down, there is no doubt at all about the shape in which it should be built up again. No doctor proposes to produce a new kind of man, with a new arrangement of eyes or limbs. The hospital, by necessity, may send a man home with one leg less: but it will not (in a creative rapture) send him home with one leg extra.”What an incredibly profound quote. We do all agree on some form of truth. In fact it was Chesterton himself who would make a critique of the atrocious pro-abortion position. He said in an article once that,
“Whatever we may think of the merits of torturing children for pleasure, and no doubt there is much to be said on both sides, I am sure we all agree that it should be done with sterilized instruments.”What he is saying is that though we disagree on things, there ARE truths that just exist. We may deny morality, like in the case of abortion for example, but yet we invoke it through the use of human practice and sterilization. If there is no such thing as morality, or a concept of right and wrong–why bother?
Chesterton further comments on society and how we agree on truths when it comes to the human body, and even invoke medical language to talk about political theory; yet agree on no point of reference.
“But social science is by no means always content with the normal human soul; it has all sorts of fancy souls for sale. Man as a social idealist will say “I am tired of being a Puritan; I want to be a Pagan,” or “Beyond this dark probation of Individualism I see the shining paradise of Collectivism.” Now in bodily ills there is none of this difference about the ultimate ideal. The patient may or may not want quinine; but he certainly wants health. No one says “I am tired of this headache; I want some toothache,” or “The only thing for this Russian influenza is a few German measles,” or “Through this dark probation of catarrh I see the shining paradise of rheumatism.” But exactly the whole difficulty in our public problems is that some men are aiming at cures which other men would regard as worse maladies; are offering ultimate conditions as states of health which others would uncompromisingly call states of disease. Mr. Belloc once said that he would no more part with the idea of property than with his teeth; yet to Mr. Bernard Shaw property is not a tooth, but a toothache. Lord Milner has sincerely attempted to introduce German efficiency; and many of us would as soon welcome German measles. Dr. Saleeby would honestly like to have Eugenics; but I would rather have rheumatics.”Chesterton ends his disquisition with a poignant and scathing critique of society:
“This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern social discussion; that the quarrel is not merely about the difficulties, but about the aim. We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each other’s eyes cut. We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing. We should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would be a good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood; but some of us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one. Everyone is indignant if our army is weak, including the people who would be even more indignant if it were strong. The social case is exactly the opposite of the medical case. We do not disagree, like doctors, about the precise nature of the illness, while agreeing about the nature of health. On the contrary, we all agree that England is unhealthy, but half of us would not look at her in what the other half would call blooming health. Public abuses are so prominent and pestilent that they sweep all generous people into a sort of fictitious unanimity. We forget that, while we agree about the abuses of things, we should differ very much about the uses of them. Mr. Cadbury and I would agree about the bad public house. It would be precisely in front of the good public-house that our painful personal fracas would occur.So, is there any truth out there? Can we ALL agree on anything? Science works because the universe is governed by laws and certain regularities. Science is devoted to studying and discovering those laws. This does however, suggest a creator! Now, scientists do not claim knowledge of objective or final truths, but they do insist that the Newtonian account of the universe is superior to the Ptolemaic, and that the Newtonian has been surpassed by that of Einstein. It is only when science has endured criticism and testing that findings are found to be true.
I maintain, therefore, that the common sociological method is quite useless: that of first dissecting abject poverty or cataloguing prostitution. We all dislike abject poverty; but it might be another business if we began to discuss independent and dignified poverty. We all disapprove of prostitution; but we do not all approve of purity. The only way to discuss the social evil is to get at once to the social ideal. We can all see the national madness; but what is national sanity? I have called this book “What Is Wrong with the World?” and the upshot of the title can be easily and clearly stated. What is wrong is that we do not ask what is right.”
I am reminded of Hume, Ayer, and their objections to miracles as presented in the Bible. They put forth an idea that has been a priori for at least the last 150 years. This is the idea of the Verification Principle. It states, that for a thing to be fact, it must be a) self evidently true (2+2=4, or all bachelors are unmarried men) or b) be verifiable in a scientific laboratory. If neither a) or b), “commit it to the flames,” says Hume. There are two problems–The Verification Principle itself is not self evidently true and is certainly not verifiable in a lab–so–commit it to the flames, right?
Secondly, the idea of miracles as put forth by Hume is a violation of the laws of science. Is this true? I think not. It was C.S. Lewis who told us to imagine coming home at the end of a long day, and putting 1,000 dollars in your drawer, and 1,000 dollars under your mattress. In the morning, you should expect to find 2,000 dollars. What if you were to wake up and only find 50 dollars? Would you conclude that the laws of mathematics had been broken? No! You would conclude that the laws of the land had been broken and that a robber had entered your house and stolen the money.
This is the same issue with miracles. We know miracles are actions caused by an outside agent BECAUSE, we know the laws of the universe to be constant. In fact, C.S. Lewis would go on to say that,
“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.”While they are too embarrassed to challenge science, many liberal scholars will concede that facts are known, but proclaim that values are relative. Values to them are the product of individuals and cultural preferences.
The Greeks disagreed with this. They felt that there was a moral code in the universe that was real. They felt that this moral order was accessible to human intellect, just like the laws of nature. On what basis do liberal scholars reject the Greek view? Simple. They point to the existence of widespread moral diversity. America is quite diverse. We have different views on morality. This is often argued and the point will be proclaimed that there is simply no moral truth.
Another way they will argue this is to try to appeal to reason. They will argue that there are no absolutes in the universe. Well, by making this very statement, they have created an absolute. Therefore, this is self-defeating. They have committed a violation of the rule of non-contradiction.
We must make a case for morality while much of the world, and most of our country (America) is fleeing from it. This decline of morality has created the “crisis of the West.” This crisis is not simply of the “death of God.” As Nietzsche predicted, if religion withers away, so does morality. The reason is that religion is the primary source of morality, and therefore morality cannot long survive the decay of religion.
How will the liberals response to a decline of morality? They will rejoice. They will welcome it in the name of freedom. This was Nietzsche’s response as well. Liberals, like Nietzsche, speak about creating “new values.” Some even dream about creating a “new man” free from the traditional impediments of human nature. Consider this quote from Richard Rorty (remember to him there is no absolute truth):
“It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’ … It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own … The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students … When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank… You have to be educated in order to be … a participant in our conversation … So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours … I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents … I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.”The liberal commune, based on shared possessions and free love, is one such social experiment. The Nazis and Communists also tried to create new men and new values, with less benign results. C.S. Lewis warned us about “Men without Chests.” God help us.
About John Wyte
I have some views that don’t coincide with the mainstream. At times I go against the status quo. I do not expect much of what I say here to be popular. Then again, we aren't called to be popular, we are called to be on the side of right.
No comments:
Post a Comment