Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Logicide

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Age of Mass Delusion

Highly illuminating.  You can see these undercurrents in many debates here and at TSZ.

One of the best books that cracks the code on what we are living through was written by Dutch psychiatrist Joost A. M. Meerloo about 60 years ago. Mull over the first line of his book’s forward, and you will think he is writing about today: “This book attempts to depict the strange transformation of the free human mind into an automatically responding machine – a transformation which can be brought about by some of the cultural undercurrents in our present-day society as well as by deliberate experiments in the service of a political ideology.”

(…)

Ignorance was cultivated in the schools through political correctness and squashing free debate. The academy’s disparaging of western civilization virtually wiped out respect for any serious study of history and civics, as well as for the Socratic method and the rules of civil discourse. Political correctness sewed confusion into the language, particularly regarding identity politics. Youth are now set to be programmed for conformity through the K-12 “Common Core” curriculum mandates.

(…)

It amounts to an act of “logicide,” … To kill logic and reason that might stand in their way, wannabe dictators “fabricate a hate language in order to stir up mass emotions.”

(…)

Why would anyone want to build such a culture of coercion? In a word, power. “Equality” is not the reason for what is happening with such mobs. It is the pretext for what they are doing. Like all such deceptions, its sole purpose is as a vehicle to transfer power from individuals to an increasingly centralized state. The fuel, as usual, is the emotional blackmail of people of goodwill, the uses of mass mobilization to exploit that goodwill, then, finally, to render all such goodwill meaningless.

(…)

Most who protest the RFRA laws are more likely pawns than true believers. Like the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, they tend to be atomized individuals who are drawn to the psychic thrill of being part of a mobilized mass that feeds on emotions and can feel a sense of righteousness in the stated pretext. (In the RFRA case, it’s the semantic device of “marriage equality,” but it’ll just as easily be something else tomorrow.) “The ecstatic participation in mass elation is the oldest psycho drama in the world,” wrote Meerloo.

(…)

The transformation of the free human mind to an automatically responding machine” is essentially the story of the transformation of the United States of America we are watching in real time today. Delusion is an important element, because tyrannies do not stand up to logic. It seems very sudden, but it’s not. We’re only at this tipping point because we let our defenses down. In fact, if the First Amendment collapses, it would simply indicate a return to humanity’s tribal default position, in which a sort of Nietzschean “Will to Power” rules the day.

(…)

The totalitarian potentate, in order to break down the minds of men, first needs widespread mental chaos and verbal confusion, because both paralyze his opposition and cause the morale of the enemy to deteriorate – unless his adversaries are aware of the dictator’s real aim.

Comments
William J Murray @ 34
What book are you talking about? Did you read the article? It refers to several books.
The particular book was cited by groovamos and called The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech by Kirsten Powers
The article doesn’t claim that those involved in the purposeful propagandizing of the public mind represent an already-entrenched perfect totalitarian control of the entire system.
It implies the existence of a broad conspiracy, that left-wing opinion is a monolithic bloc moved by a single purpose. It sets up the left as the evil ‘other’ on whom blame for all the country’s ills can be heaped. It’s a time-honored tactic. For many Arabs, the problems of the Middle East are all the fault of the US and its proxy, Israel. For Stalinists in Russia and Maoists in China, it was the corrupt, reactionary, capitalist West, led by the US, of course. For Nazi Germany, following a well-established tradition in Christian states in Europe for centuries before, it was the Jews.
No, I’m not ridiculing the idea that free speech can be effectively suppressed by intimidation.
Then are you saying it doesn’t occur? Are you saying that it doesn’t affect people’s lives? Are you saying it doesn’t have the effects detailed in the article?
I’m saying it happens on both sides. I’m saying that the pressure on high school biology teachers not to discuss the theory of evolution which, in some areas, reportedly reaches the level of intimidation and suppression, illustrates that the right is quite capable of doing what they are accusing the left of doing.
In other words, you’re saying that there were actually such conspiracies, we’d never hear about them and we’d never see any opposition? You are drawing a false dichotomy – that we either live in a perfect, totalitarian mind-control situation, or no such conspiracies to manipulate the public mind exist at all. We know such conspiracies exist, Seversky. Just because they’re not perfect or in complete control doesn’t mean they do not.
Of course there are conspiracies but my belief is that they are nowhere near as widespread or as capable as implied by both the article and the book and that they exist on both sides. We are both well aware that the Nazis accused the Jews of being in a conspiracy to deprive the Germans of their rightful inheritance. As I said above, it’s a time-honored propaganda tactic and was very successful. It focused the fear, anger and frustration of the population, especially when inflamed by articles and books about a conspiracy to do them down, against an easily identified target. It also drew on the anti-semitism that lurked just beneath the surface of many counties in Europe. As with all such cases where things get out of hand, it didn’t turn out well for the target group. The fact is that conspiracy theorists are trying to influence public opinion just like the groups they accuse.
Are you serious? Do you really not see the threat to free speech posed by lowering the bar for abridging that freedom to the level that a mere declaration of being offended is sufficient to have the offender subject to the full weight of the law?
I have absolutely no idea where this comes from. This is exactly what the country is headed towards, and is part of what the article is talking about – the lowering of the bar of free speech to criminalize offensive speech. You and the article and I are in agreement here – intimidating people by threatening their jobs or safety because they say offensive things is a de facto form of censorship.
We are in agreement if you acknowledge that the improper pressure on high school biology teachers to make no mention of evolution is an example of the right doing what they are accusing the left of doing.
And this is as true of the LGBT and a/mat communities as it is of the religious.
And because of the lack of critical thinking, any of them can be moved via emotional propaganda to do things for their respective communities that harm a free society and free speech, like shaming and ridiculing those expressing different views, and then embracing laws that curtail free expression of religion and free speech. Or, by moving them to vote for candidates because of a single, group-defined issue – like support for same-sex marriage, or based on their abortion views.
I’m all for people being taught critical thinking and being encouraged to apply it, not just to science but politics and religion. I would like to see it applied to the policies of both the Democrats and Republicans and to the dogma and doctrines of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. I’m not sure that those groups would welcome such scrutiny, though.Seversky
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
@36 I know better than to interact with you.evnfrdrcksn
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
@35 - you're right, your will is in bondage. Not free at all.Mung
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
@25 You are delusional. You assume that everyone is like you. Take a leisurely stroll through a bad part of town and tell me that people vote based on feelings. It's nonsense. You have a very poor view of human beings. You should be ashamed of yourself. But no, please: Keep on spewing your self-righteous bullshoes*. You know your audience. *edited to avoid deletion.evnfrdrcksn
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Seversky said:
I’m saying that the very fact this book was published undermines its main thesis.
What book are you talking about? Did you read the article? It refers to several books. The article doesn't claim that those involved in the purposeful propagandizing of the public mind represent an already-entrenched perfect totalitarian control of the entire system.
No, I’m not ridiculing the idea that free speech can be effectively suppressed by intimidation.
Then are you saying it doesn't occur? Are you saying that it doesn't affect people's lives? Are you saying it doesn't have the effects detailed in the article?
If there really were a left- or right-wing conspiracy of the magnitude implied then, like all conspiracies, it would almost certainly prefer to remain hidden from public view. If it had the power ascribed to it then surely it would have been able to put pressure on the publishers to reject the manuscript, arranged to have all copies destroyed and suggested to the author that it would be better for her health if she forgot all about it.
In other words, you're saying that there were actually such conspiracies, we'd never hear about them and we'd never see any opposition? You are drawing a false dichotomy - that we either live in a perfect, totalitarian mind-control situation, or no such conspiracies to manipulate the public mind exist at all. We know such conspiracies exist, Seversky. Just because they're not perfect or in complete control doesn't mean they do not.
Are you serious? Do you really not see the threat to free speech posed by lowering the bar for abridging that freedom to the level that a mere declaration of being offended is sufficient to have the offender subject to the full weight of the law?
I have absolutely no idea where this comes from. This is exactly what the country is headed towards, and is part of what the article is talking about - the lowering of the bar of free speech to criminalize offensive speech. You and the article and I are in agreement here - intimidating people by threatening their jobs or safety because they say offensive things is a de facto form of censorship.
And this is as true of the LGBT and a/mat communities as it is of the religious.
And because of the lack of critical thinking, any of them can be moved via emotional propganda to do things for their respective communities that harm a free society and free speech, like shaming and ridiculing those expressing different views, and then embracing laws that curtail free expression of religion and free speech. Or, by moving them to vote for candidates because of a single, group-defined issue - like support for same-sex marriage, or based on their abortion views.William J Murray
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Everybody "wants to do the right thing". Sure, but what is 'good'?EugeneS
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
Sev, you know or should know that I am not dealing with an isolated individual (the stalking alone implies one or more confederates) but an unfortunately typical pattern of extremists found in a circle of sites that is organically connected to TSZ. So much so, that -- drawing on my experience of dealing with the Marxists in years past -- TSZ can be seen to be in significant part functioning as a somewhat more respectable front for the plainly potentially violent and certainly uncivil extremists. That is what has to be dealt with. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Picture for the headline: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/2%2025.jpgEugen
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
Headline: Atheists want to do the right thing: but can't understand why they constantly fail.Mung
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
William J Murray @ 16
You are now doubling down on the very thing the article illuminates by calling it “absurd on its face”. Just because a book can be published doesn’t mean that exactly what the article illustrates doesn’t occur – free speech suppression not by censorship, but by intimidation. Which is exactly what you are doing by ridiculing the very idea that free speech can be effectively suppressed via intimidation.
No, I’m not ridiculing the idea that free speech can be effectively suppressed by intimidation. I’m saying that the very fact this book was published undermines its main thesis. If there really were a left- or right-wing conspiracy of the magnitude implied then, like all conspiracies, it would almost certainly prefer to remain hidden from public view. If it had the power ascribed to it then surely it would have been able to put pressure on the publishers to reject the manuscript, arranged to have all copies destroyed and suggested to the author that it would be better for her health if she forgot all about it.
The article is not about competing senses of offense, but rather the ongoing suppression of free speech via intimidation tactics. All you are doing here is attempting to characterize the article and the writers negatively, or frame the issue as something other than what it actually is about.
Are you serious? Do you really not see the threat to free speech posed by lowering the bar for abridging that freedom to the level that a mere declaration of being offended is sufficient to have the offender subject to the full weight of the law?
Most of these people are good-hearted people that want to do the right thing, but they’re being taught/conditioned to not think about it critically and to go about it the wrong way – which is dangerous, in the long run, to our civil liberties.
I agree. I think most people are good-hearted and want to to the right thing, most of the time at least. And this is as true of the LGBT and a/mat communities as it is of the religious.Seversky
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 21
there is not an immoral equivalency here, so kindly drop the tu quoque fallacy. There is an ugly and very closely relevant climate of intimidation and abuse, slander, stalking and worse that you have yet to acknowledge, and for which there has been some serious enabling that is equally unacknowledged on your side.
There is very much “immoral equivalency” here. You point, as an example, to the behavior of one commenter that you felt to be threatening to both you and your family. That was an inexcusable crossing of the line and was roundly condemned as such as it most certainly should have been. But you are far from being the only victim:
Jessica Ahlquist (born June 21, 1995) was a student at Cranston High School West, who became known in 2012 after a lawsuit to remove a religious prayer from her school auditorium. The suit, Ahlquist v. Cranston, was filed with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, and was ultimately decided in Ahlquist’s favor. During the lawsuit, Ahlquist received hate mail and was verbally attacked by her peers, media outlets, and online. She received death threats, and required police escorts to and from classes.[1] On the day following the ruling, Rhode Island State Representative Peter G. Palumbo spoke on a local radio show and referred to Ahlquist as “an evil little thing”.[My emphasis]
No doubt all her abusers held themselves to be good Christians. People down the centuries have been subject to severe punishment, including death, at the hands of believers for expressing a lack of belief in God. My birthday is the same date as the hanging of Thpmas Aikenhead, the last person to be executed for blasphemy in the Britain. In some parts of the world people are still being killed for expressing such views. So, again, there is very much “immoral equivalency” here.Seversky
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
WJM, food for thought, on triggering marches of folly through avalanches of talking points and prepackaged perceptions of people, events, ideas, institutions etc. And with bounded and shrinking rationality, why bother actually think and hold forth for oneself. And yet, the lessons of history are written in blood and tears, so if we refuse or neglect them, we will have to write them over again in the same hard-bought ink. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
WJM Interesting points. Makes sense.
Their voting is based on emotion and social pressure, not on a critical examination of the facts and issues. I know of many people that are one issue voters (abortion, or marriage equality) and are easily swayed by appeal to “good inentions” and rhetoric, like Bernie Sanders’ campaign, which is a perfect example of what these articles are talking about: using feel-good issue rhetoric (save the planet!) as a pretext to more centralized power and control.
I was talking about this recently with a friend. Democracy is based on the idea that the populace will be well-informed enough to make well-reasoned choices. But the thing is, how much time can the average person spend reading and evaluating political proposals, bills, campaign platforms -- and the ideas that lie behind them, the factual evidence to support them, and the historical precedents used to determine what will happen in the future? In other words, a person has to be almost obsessed with politics, day and night, to come up with a well-informed viewpoint on economics, social policies, taxation, legistlation and the myriad of other issues that politics deals with -- that's at the local and federal levels. But a person that obsessed, is usually driven by an agenda anyway and won't be truly objective and open-minded to all the ideas. That's why parties were supposedly good. Voters would trust their candidate to represent something -- and that way, not have to pay attention to every little issue and vote. But the parties began thinking alike and very often are just supporting whatever issues will generate the most money for themselves.Silver Asiatic
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
SA said:
What I struggle with is identifiers for both of the sides. Political labels don’t work as I see it.
Political party labels are simply brands, like any other brand. They are sold to the public using marketing techniques that are often the same thing as the mind-control techniques elaborated on in books mentioned in the articles here and which KF is talking about in his mass delusion articles. Both parties are, for the most part, engineered and empowered by big money interests and crony capitalism. I first noticed the "Tea Party" when I saw how mainstream democrats, republicans and the mainstream media savagely attacked anyone remotely associated with it. I've been on the receiving end of media/governement manipulation before, and I recognized the same tactics being used. Now, just because dems, repubs and the mainstream media are against a thing doesn't automatically make it a good thing, but it does mean that whatever that thing is might be worthy of further investigation. I investigated the tea party and very quickly found a massive effort to undermine, vilify and ridicule anyone and everything even associated with it. It's now a known, factual "conspiracy theory" that the IRS deliberately targeted limited-government, fiscal-conservative tea party groups to intimidate both them and potential donors (but, you know, as Seversky sees it, his rights are still safe). Tea Party conservatives were attacked like few others ever have been - Sarah Palin, for example (who took on and defeated political, crony-capitalism corruption in her own party in Alaska), and her family have been mercilessly attacked by both sides ever since her acceptance speech for the VP nomination gained the interest of those in power. However, the problem with brands (like the "Tea Party") and identified leaders of such movements is that the elitist, statist propaganda machine can turn that brand into a stigma and characterize the leaders in such a way that average people move away from them just because of the ridicule they face in supporting them. And this is the problem; the public, due to a decrease in critical thinking capacity deliberately engineered through the school system, largely lets their voting patterns be determined by how candidates and brands are characterized and advertised, without even really knowing the candidates record or their own stated positions. Their voting is based on emotion and social pressure, not on a critical examination of the facts and issues. I know of many people that are one issue voters (abortion, or marriage equality) and are easily swayed by appeal to "good inentions" and rhetoric, like Bernie Sanders' campaign, which is a perfect example of what these articles are talking about: using feel-good issue rhetoric (save the planet!) as a pretext to more centralized power and control.William J Murray
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
WJM
If you really want to know who represents the other “side”, pay attention to whom entrenched democrats and republicans alike, and the mainstream media, ridicule.
Speaking of Reagan, an excellent book I just read, for anyone interested in classic movies, American history and an era when the "sides" were easier to distinguish: Hollywood Traitors - Allan Ryskind. I found that a must-read regarding the blacklist era. To me it was shocking to see how many celebrities openly supported Stalin, while he was building prison camps and enslaving people. Hollywood is still a carrier of ideology - spreading it globally. I think few would call themselves 'communist' any more but the anti-communists of Reagan's era are still hated. In 1983, Robert Taylor's name was removed from a building in his honor, merely because he stood against Stalin's agents in Hollywood. Marxism promoted polarization, the use of lying (any means necessary for the revolution) and ultimately violence (because people can't be convinced by reason alone) to enforce equality and ethics based on materialism. Hardly anybody considers themselves a Marxist either -- but the basic principles remain intact. What I struggle with is identifiers for both of the sides. Political labels don't work as I see it.Silver Asiatic
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Seversky doesn't even know what the two "sides" are. The same "side" has been in power in the USA and indeed in many western countries since the early 1930's, with perhaps a moderate blip in the pattern during the Reagan years (both democrat and republican elites hated Reagan at the time). That "side" is advancing statism - the increase of centralized power, authority, surveillance and control at the federal level over individuals, families and communities. Over the past 25 years, more and more power has been seized by the presidency via the unilateral use of executive directives and the use of executive-created positions of power. Unelected regulatory agencies now write policies that have the effect of laws and can and do shape virtually any aspect of out economy/culture at will without the consent of the governed. If you really want to know who represents the other "side", pay attention to whom entrenched democrats and republicans alike, and the mainstream media, ridicule. Pay attention to which candidates and personalities are relentlessly attacked by a concerted effort by both political parties and the media and find out what they actually say and what their actions actually reveal.William J Murray
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Seversky
I see pressure from both ends of the political spectrum to further their respective agendas and using similar tactics.
That's the way I see it also - although I wouldn't put it into political terms. It's more a difference in philosophy. However, to me it's preferable for someone to take an intolerant position based on some openly stated first principles, rather than for reasons which are never made fully clear. Pluralism assumes some governing order - and therefore hierarchy of values. That's the problem.
They always assume that they are the “we” that will survive the purge to remake civilization in their own image, of course.
That's the key point. Marxists do the same thing. We will see the same with certain theocracies or with secular states (imposing values that "we" supposedly need). If a viewpoint or behavior is 'tolerated', that means it is not in accord with the norm or the ideal. It's very difficult in democracies to vote on standards and norms - since the democracy doesn't really work unless it is founded on standards and norms in the beginning.Silver Asiatic
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Seversky, there is not an immoral equivalency here, so kindly drop the tu quoque fallacy. There is an ugly and very closely relevant climate of intimidation and abuse, slander, stalking and worse that you have yet to acknowledge, and for which there has been some serious enabling that is equally unacknowledged on your side. I doubt it has registered with you that in answer to on the ground stalking [the evidence now is decisive] I have had to communicate with the police here again regarding such, up to just the past few days, rooted in the unhinged hostility and bully-boy tactics tolerated or even celebrated in the circle of objector sites. That is part of the back-story to my current FTR series, and I insist that I will not tolerate abusive conduct under false colours of freedom of expression. Beyond, there is a clear, longstanding agenda of ruthless secularisation (now, core rights such as freedom of conscience, association and expression are in the stakes, as already pointed out above . . . ) and faction dynamics driven by evolutionary materialist undermining of mind and morality, much as Plato warned against 2350 years ago:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . ], and not in legal subjection to them.
This, of course is yet another studiously ignored inconvenient truth. And, I repeat, the Frankfurt School and its extension through Alinsky, to directly identifiable kulturkampf agit prop pushes and street and media theatre and spin games with destructive march of blind rage fuelled folly impacts -- not to mention, abuse of state power -- need to be seriously addressed: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2015/06/acts-27-test-14-andrew-breitbarts.html http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2015/04/matt-24-watch-255-homosexualist-agendas.html Sorry, you're another is not an adequate answer here at UD, given what has been going on with very direct relevance. Something that makes this from the OP very, very familiar:
Why would anyone want to build such a culture of coercion? In a word, power. “Equality” is not the reason for what is happening with such mobs. It is the pretext for what they are doing. Like all such deceptions, its sole purpose is as a vehicle to transfer power from individuals to an increasingly centralized state. The fuel, as usual, is the emotional blackmail of people of goodwill, the uses of mass mobilization to exploit that goodwill, then, finally, to render all such goodwill meaningless. (…) The transformation of the free human mind to an automatically responding machine” is essentially the story of the transformation of the United States of America we are watching in real time today. Delusion is an important element, because tyrannies do not stand up to logic. It seems very sudden, but it’s not. We’re only at this tipping point because we let our defenses down. In fact, if the First Amendment collapses, it would simply indicate a return to humanity’s tribal default position, in which a sort of Nietzschean “Will to Power” rules the day.
Do you think that this, from Will Provine at the U Tenn Darwin Day event of 1998, is empty words without consequences?
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
Or, Crick's even more chilling (and inadvertently self-refuting) remarks in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis?
. . . that "You" [--> Sir Francis, what about YOU, too?], your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
Do you think, we are too dumb to understand what words like this really imply? Or, that we are blind to how these sorts of ideas are plainly increasingly having ruinous consequences on the ground? Do you think -- given what is there in Luke's classic expose on manipulation of Democracy to ruin in Ac 27 (yes, in that Book your ilk so desperately wants to discredit and drive out of the public's mind), we have forgotten the problem of the march of folly? Evolutionary materialism provides a basis, a lab coat clad rationale -- ironically -- for undermining confidence in mind and morality, and for then cynically manipulating through divide, confuse, program and manipulate tactics. Tactics that are now at watershed with cynical destruction of marriage and family as well as other socio-cultural centres as the bulwarks against the atomised, confused, brainwashed, crowd that is just waiting for the nihilistic manipulator of the power of irresponsible crowds. WJM has done an excellent service, putting his finger on a serious and destructive trend, and we need to pay it serious attention. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 15
Seversky, there is such a thing as entrenched, ugly political correctness backed by destructive administrative, media, agit-prop and lawfare action that sound all too familiar. It is not merely a sense of entitlement not to be offended — and on that, slander, cyberstalking, on the ground stalking and the like are not to be brushed aside as merely being offended at criticism . . . — but there is a major obvious push to demand approval and legal entrenchment of patent folly and evil, consistently coming from the left all over our civilisation.
I see pressure from both ends of the political spectrum to further their respective agendas and using similar tactics. Since neither has been able to gain the upper hand so far our freedoms are relatively safe - for the present, If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would be alarmed by the apparent spread of the so-called “doomsday preppers”. They look like they are almost salivating at the prospect of the complete collapse of Western civilization. And they are but the most visible manifestation of a much wider worldview that holds that current civilization is irredeemably corrupt and needs to be swept away so that we can start afresh. They always assume that they are the “we” that will survive the purge to remake civilization in their own image, of course. It’s not too hard to imagine some of them going to the next level of actually trying to bring about the catastrophe they’re preparing for. But you’d only believe that sort of thing if you were a conspiracy theorist.Seversky
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Ok so if you keep finding things like this in supposed 75m year old bones what would that tell you logically? http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/dinosaur-blood-cells-proteins-found-in-crummy-alberta-fossils-1.3106247reverendspy
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Seversky: So Kirsten Powers bewails the war on free speech. By publishing a book about it on Amazon? Am I the only one who detects a whiff of irony? The irony here is that a whiffing Seversky thinks that free speech is a simple on/off proposition instead of a moving trend. The irony is that without reading Powers' book he seems to be informed on this. The irony is that the book is not published "on Amazon". Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose Seversky is a homosexual male living in New York. He is soon to marry his male partner and enters a Christian-owned local bakery and orders a wedding cake for the "gay wedding". The owner, wanting to express displeasure at a societal trend enforced by state power, decides to have a little naughty fun while doing it. He tells Seversky rather crudely that wedding cakes for male homosexuals will have an image of a bed with a roll of toilet paper resting on the pillow, no exceptions. Seversky stomps out and his partner sues the baker and wins and is also fined by the state. And of course the baker must enter bankruptcy and loses the store. All because of a smartass remark to Seversky, the man so sure of "free speech". Despotism creeps. Hitler did not tell voters that they would be effectively voting for an eventual oath of allegiance to the fuhrer, enforceable by death. BTW Powers was raised atheist and converted to Christianity a few years ago.groovamos
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Seversky
Where I think we agree is where some people seem to think that a fundamental human right is the right not to be offended. When people attempt to restrict what others can say simply because they are offended by it is something I find deeply offensive. So why should their sense of offense outweigh mine?
I find it very difficult to solve that problem.Silver Asiatic
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Severskyi said:
If I mocked – gently – the proposition that there is some sort of liberal leftie conspiracy to suppress free speech it’s because it’s absurd on its face, as illustrated by the open publication of a book complaining about the alleged threat.
You are now doubling down on the very thing the article illuminates by calling it "absurd on its face". Just because a book can be published doesn't mean that exactly what the article illustrates doesn't occur - free speech suppression not by censorship, but by intimidation. Which is exactly what you are doing by ridiculing the very idea that free speech can be effectively suppressed via intimidation.
Where I think we agree is where some people seem to think that a fundamental human right is the right not to be offended. When people attempt to restrict what others can say simply because they are offended by it is something I find deeply offensive. So why should their sense of offense outweigh mine?
The article is not about competing senses of offense, but rather the ongoing suppression of free speech via intimidation tactics. All you are doing here is attempting to characterize the article and the writers negatively, or frame the issue as something other than what it actually is about. But here you go, jumping in immediately as part of the intimidation factor, doling out your negative characterizations as if such groups do not exist and do not use their power in the media to intimidate others into acquiescence. If you are against legalizing gay marriage or adoption, you are part of a "hate" group. Debating the facts or the argument isn't even necessary because of how the debate has been framed in the media. If a religious family refuses to cater a wedding because it goes against their religious views, suddenly they are "haters" and "bigots". If you're pro-ID or creationism, you're necessarily anti-science and wish to impose a theocracy in the USA. Most of these people are good-hearted people that want to do the right thing, but they're being taught/conditioned to not think about it critically and to go about it the wrong way - which is dangerous, in the long run, to our civil liberties.William J Murray
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Seversky, there is such a thing as entrenched, ugly political correctness backed by destructive administrative, media, agit-prop and lawfare action that sound all too familiar. It is not merely a sense of entitlement not to be offended -- and on that, slander, cyberstalking, on the ground stalking and the like are not to be brushed aside as merely being offended at criticism . . . -- but there is a major obvious push to demand approval and legal entrenchment of patent folly and evil, consistently coming from the left all over our civilisation. Consistently, principled questioning of such agendas and media or agit-prop whipped up crises and linked demands for linked agendas is pushed aside, branded and scapegoated then attacked and hounded. And at the root is an undermining of moral objectivity directly tied to self-falsifying, self-referentially irretrievably incoherent evolutionary materialism dressed up in the lab coat. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
If I mocked - gently - the proposition that there is some sort of liberal leftie conspiracy to suppress free speech it’s because it’s absurd on its face, as illustrated by the open publication of a book complaining about the alleged threat. Where I think we agree is where some people seem to think that a fundamental human right is the right not to be offended. When people attempt to restrict what others can say simply because they are offended by it is something I find deeply offensive. So why should their sense of offense outweigh mine?Seversky
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2015/06/acts-27-test-14-andrew-breitbarts.htmlkairosfocus
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-part-11-a-paper-on-inducing-mass-pseudo-consensus/kairosfocus
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Please take note of Seversky being an example of the very thing the article exposes with his attempt at ridiculing and shaming those who he thinks are expressing a certain political perspective. No attempt at logic or a civil discourse whatsoever.William J Murray
June 9, 2015
June
06
Jun
9
09
2015
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
Great Article Yes, non of this has happened accidently. It is no chance or random occurrence that Darwinian evolution is taught at our schools despite the evidence against it. The smug satisfaction of its proponents, feeling comfortable in its bosom, feeling that their usefulness knows no ends and they will most likely be the last to face the firing squads as the elites drop the hammer, because after all have they not made the greatest sacrifice? and sold their fellow man down the river.DillyGill
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Fantastic article! I sometimes comment on smaller blogs and Facebook. I find that logic, reason and common sense don't work well with always angry social activists. When they attack I learned it's not good to get defensive. That's basically what they want. Instead it's better to attack them with their own politically correct language. It works well, they get shocked and cannot believe what happened.Eugen
June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply