It seems that most people one hears complaining about ‘lack of culturally relativistic perspective’, in which all cultures are equal and so a basket-weaving culture is equal to a space exploration culture, and a hand chopping off, Jew-hating culture where women are chattel culture is equal to a culture with a real system of secular justice, equality of men and women and all citizens before the law and reasonable tolerance of other races and religion nevermind the abolishment of capital punishment or painful punishment for ‘crimes’ such a homosexuality or pre-marital sex, are a) far left overly-race-conscious overly-PC, white-guilt suffering liberals, or b), those who are in fiery denial and are personally offended by the notion that they hail from cultures which others might be deemed less advanced and less culturally evolved in its treatment of human beings etc, than westernized civilizations. Which one are you?
Liberals are in favor of second amendment when it comes to burning the American flag or hate speech toward America or the constitution, but against it when it comes to questioning progressive doxies like climate change or feminism.
Because the fact that in some countries their morality dictates that 8 year old girls should have their clitorises cut off by dull knives, makes the world a more beautiful place. Oh wait. Americans have doctors perform circumcision on 8 day old babies, so therefore there’s no moral difference between the west and the Muslim world.
Religions like modern Christianity or Judaism aren’t dangerous for the world for this reason: in general people turn toward religion for the prospect of eternal life. Normal people with natural good inclinations cherry pick the good things of a religion of choice and use religion to justify, and expand upon their kindness and goodness.
Occasionally they will take some of the bad with the good such as being opposed to gay rights even though they don’t actually hate gays. Bad people cherry pick the bad things and use it to justify and expand upon their cruelty and apathy. Without religion good people will turn to godless ideologies like secular humanism that appeal to their good nature. Bad people will turn to godless cruel Darwinian ideologies like communism which appeal to their bad nature.
That being said, some religions are clearly more dangerous than others. That is to say, they contain more dangerous uncontroversial scriptures than others which one must necessarily accept along with whatever good or moral scriptures also are contained there. For example, Christianity and judaism has some very violent sounding scriptures which contain commands to carry out violent acts such as stoning adulters etc. But none of these inhumane scriptures is taken literally in modern judaism or Christianity. If they are by some community, this is considered an extremely unconventional or even heretical interpretation by modern Christendom or the religious Jewish world. But now you take a religion like Islam, and clearly it contains a far greater volume of violent or imperialistic/fascistic commands which are taken literally by the religious Islamic world. So a good Muslim must have a frighteningly large number of violent intolerant beliefs even if they don’t personally act upon them, and a bad Muslim will join a cult like ISIS. In fact, an Islamic sect like the ahmadiyah’s or the Druze or even Sufis, who prescribe to an Islam which downplays or even rejects many of these commands, do so at risk to their life. Individual Islamic reformers who would for example not want the Quran to be read as the literal word of god, and rather as a book inspired by divinity, are often executed as heretics either by Islamic states or individual mainstream Muslims who in fact have a religious command to take justice into their hands in such a way. This is why the claims made by western secular humanists, implying some sort of moral equivalence existing between Islam and Christianity, simply because both are technically false, it’s laughable to any person well versed in modern Islamic and judeo-Christian theology, or anyone who’s stepped down from armchair of the American liberal.
Modern Christianity, totally castrated and unexciting is no longer the triumphalist religion it once was. A pope in the past years even apologized to the Muslims for the crusades which were a late, limited and incompetent imitation of the jihad. Christianity today stands for practically nothing. The recent words of the new pope, implying that the Catholic Church shouldn’t stand against abortion or gay marriage perfectly exemplify this…If Christianity is no longer conservative then what is it? The answer is that it stands for nothing and is completely meaningless and arbitrary.
Though the Europe of today is very much irreligious, there are inevitably the religious-types of people who cannot accept a world-view without God. For these types of people the modern substitutes for organized religion: superstition, conspiracy theories and new age spirituality, do not suffice. When they seek out a religious venue they find two options available to them: they find Christianity which is an easy and nothing-to-it religious practice based on orthodoxy alone, where one basically has to do nothing but profess a certain belief and then from day to day do, eat, talk about, read anything they like. They find a religion that as mentioned stands for next to nothing and constantly espouses self-guilt for the crimes of its past, constantly seeks to appease another religion and another culture as of late.
That other religion and culture is Islam, an orthopraxy religion that demands a very specific manner of daily behavior, setting out clear guidelines on every detail of daily life down to how to enter and exit the washroom.(allows you to think less) Unlike modern Christianity, Islam does not hesitate to take clear stances on world affairs and back those stances up with believable threats of violence. Islam does not apologize for its bloody history of cultural and geographical imperialism, and in fact Muslims pride themselves on it.
Islam today is exciting and engaging..imams pump people up like no preacher or priest has dared to do in many decades. Muslims are not ashamed of their bloody history of cultural and geographical imperialism like Europeans and in fact pride themselves on it.
The racist and moral cop-out of ‘cultural relativism’ has resulted in a Europe and slowly but surely an America which has no values whatsoever, no culture which it holds to be worthy of praise.
A perfect insult is one which appeals to ones insecurities, what they don’t want to believe about themselves, but fear is true. By insulting someone in this way, they may become dependent on you emotionally, they may rely on you to revoke the insult and ensure them that what they said is not what they really see or think, thereby putting them at ease.
Similarly, a perfect compliment is one which too appeals to ones insecurities, what they want to believe about themselves, but fear is untrue.
One can nearly as easily be ensnared by a perfect complimentor, as by a perfect insulter, but the most dangerous seducer of all is the one who is both able to shatter some tentative aspects of our imagined self image, and affirm other tentative aspects. In this way they are able to appear to be completely genuine in their commentary about you and are not clearly either the archetype of the abuser(one who manipulates through insulting) nor of the charmer(one who manipulates through complimenting). So clever is one who is able to do this, that they are literally indistinguishable from a friend and their insulting or charming comments can only be concluded to be down to their honest opinions, to any outside observer. No behavior can identity this type of manipulator.
Being spoiled and loved as a child teaches one the irrational behavior of loving oneself for no other reason, than being oneself, since a parent loves their child for the same reason. If you fully indoctrinate a child with the notion that they should be loved for no reason other than being, they will love themselves unconditionally. If however, you teach a child that love should at least in part be dependent on or proportional to having certain characteristics or behaviors, they will forever base at least some of their self-love on appraisals of their own behavior or characteristics, which are necessarily based on input from society. Aka other people. This is why hell is other people. At least in part, for most of us. Some lucky individuals who were spoiled as children received the ultimate gift of narcissism, while the rest of us at least in part, must spend our lives searching for reasons to revere ourselves. We desperately search for ways in which we may appraise ourselves as superior human beings, or means of procuring such superior characteristics.
Reading about the lives of ancient peoples you realize much.
What is is that any man is doing here? Writing about history only to become history himself. Biding his time until he too is swept under the carpet of eternity.
Maybe the ancients pondered our same thoughts, despairing over their mortality. Eternity presided them and eternity followed them.
How long do you have left until your brain fizzles out and you cease to exist? What care have you regarding your funeral? Will a man give any greater care about of the state of affairs after his life than he gave during the last 14 billion years, biding his time before his birth?
Some Progressives perceive obnoxious wasting of money with scorn and jealousy, and use examples of such, for example ‘rich kids of Instagram’ as a condemnation of capitalism. Rather than take joy in the fact that they live in a capitalist system, which is fundamentally a system of equal-opportunity for wealth creation, in which their own children or grandchildren have the opportunity to become just as extravagantly rich as those featured in ‘rich kids of Instagram’, they would rather jealously scorn that very system. It would seem that they would opt to put in it’s place some form of more aggressive forcible wealth distribution, effectively abolish private property entirely by limiting wealth inheritance, or a number of other means with which to further limit individual liberty and the ability for individual achievement, all for the sake of the masses who shiver in inadequacy at the material achievements of the best individuals in society. Ironically, by theoretically implementing such utopian and fundamentally socialist and collectivist ideals, by further limiting the already threatened and constantly-attacked capitalist system, the greatest system ever devised by man, and the one which most effectively rewards individual excellence, progressive thinkers would limit extreme wealth, or even the possibility of extreme wealth, to even fewer individuals. I suppose they would rather that extreme wealth and power accrue exclusively to fat massive-government beurocrats, than to the grandchildren of great businessmen, (or possibly even their own grandchildren), all for the sake of their own frail egos.
It is a popular line of reasoning for progressives, that it is pathetic to feel national, religious or racial pride or allegiance or loyalty, since whichever nation, religion or race one belongs to is nothing more than a coincidence of birth. By the same token though, one could ask them, why should they feel any allegiance or loyalty to their brother, sister, parent or close relative? They in the same way are only related to one by coincidence of birth after all…