2015: The Triumph of Evil or "What Happened?!"

These are momentous times. I fear there will be a point in the foreseeable future - say 2015 - that we'll ask ourselves, "how could we've let this happen, again!". My fear isn't based on phobia (of whatever variety), or on a vague gut feeling, female intuition or on obsessively reading the papers. It is not even based on historical parallels. Rather, my fears are the result of ice cold reasoning and analysis of the essentials.

"The Lighthouse" discusses with some intensity the intricacies of Subjectivism and its fallacies as espoused by the various branches of the Left over the centuries - including Right wing Socialism - and how these ideologies developed out of the Counter-Enlightenment movement started by Rousseau.

No matter what guise the particular variety takes, the end result is always the same: repression, followed by carnage and tragedy, born out of good intentions towards the common good. And if present developments on the world stage aren't deceiving us, the fallacy they stubbornly hang on to may come to cost us dearly once again. Since the wars of the last centuries the stakes are up and the technical means for industrial scale genocide have hugely improved.

The central philosophical con trick of all Collectivist thought (meaning: the opposite of individualism, covering the far Right (negligible in numbers), and first and foremost all of the Left of the political spectrum) is perpetrated in order to accommodate the lie, so that the ideology may survive yet another generation: it is the denial of Reality and with it, the rejection of right and wrong, good and bad.

This amorality has become a problem of Biblical proportions as adherents because of it, do not recognize Evil, even if it bit them in the behind. And because of the Left's unwillingness to concede defeat of their bankrupt ideology, the Left is also incapable of fighting Evil.

Psychologist/blogger Dr Sanity in a brilliant post "Strange Love: How they learnt to stop worrying and love the Iranian Bomb" described it like this: "Recent articles in the MSM (see here and here) suggest that the left is gearing up for an all out assault on the possibility of war with Iran. They intend to do this by using the talking point that "they can live with a nuclear Iran." ... In fact, we can translate (that) into "learning to live without Israel and the Jews". Because that is what the practical consequence of this leftist line of reasoning amounts to."

The doctor is as incisive as ever! But as the tally at present stands at 110 million victims for the whole of Counter-Enlightenment philosophies, who's to blink at a genocide more or less if it's done in the name of universal common good?! An amoral act of cowardice is better than having to fight any war, however morally justified, right?

Anybody who'd take the trouble of objectively thinking about the proposition before us, throwing momentarily aside psychopathology and the habitual ideological blinkers, would have to admit that such are the consequences of letting Iran off the nuclear hook.

But because of the central lie at the base of the ideology, they are unable to look at any given situation with anything remotely resembling objectivity. It enables them to maintain the ideology, but at the price of amorality and consequently, a blind spot for Evil.

The declaration in Subjectivist circles that God is dead has been epitomised by the proto Nazi philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. After World War II the Left have personified Adolf Hitler as the Horned One himself, thus creating a straw man for Evil. With Hitler's demise in the Berlin bunker, Evil died with him. As a result, the Leftist dogma has become that every issue can be resolved by talk and diplomacy.

The danger of this undertaking is that they run the risk of becoming Evil themselves. Their unwillingness to even consider their error, means risking the lives of another 100 million human beings. This is no political game, or a feeble discussion about up-tight morality. Existential issues are at stake, to put it mildly.

Recently re-reading some of the works of writer C.S. Lewis I stumbled upon 'Miracles' in which he refutes the Subjectivist fallacy by yet other means than set out in the PMF. In 'Miracles' Lewis is proving why - what at the time were termed Naturalists (or Materialists, Darwinians, atheists) - cannot maintain their faith in the human capacity for reason, and simultaneously assert an evolution process through natural selection.

Today's Postmodern Left have solved the issue by saying goodbye to Truth altogether, but in Lewis' time, in the evolutionary's book - absent a Designer - there could not considered to be such a thing as Truth prior to the event of thinkers, who could make the moral distinction between right and wrong. This is the idea of Subjectivism in its full glory or, 'if I die overnight, will the sun still be rising tomorrow?', 'if planet Earth is destroyed by an attack of giant squirrels from outer space and no human is left, this cannot be considered an immoral act (as only humans can say that it is).

Naturalists explain the world in terms of an endless chain of Cause and Effect. Every event is the result of another. This excludes free will and, by extension, moral choice, good and evil. "Should anything be proven to exist independent of this Total System of Nature, then Naturalism would be in ruins", according to C.S. Lewis - while he goes on to refute the Naturalists in no uncertain terms.

This is of course Lewis, the logician and philosopher talking. But the entire Subjectivist fallacy has since been transferred to the political realm, where not logic and reason reign, but rhetoric and politicians who mold their message to conform with the public's perception, or vice versa, as the case may be. There, it has subsisted like a virus, adapting and mutating as necessary with each generation of useful dupes, giving birth to Jacobites, romanticists, nationalists (the state as God), all the Marxist derivatives, Nazis, social revolutionaries, Postmoderns, feminists, environmentalists, Socialists by the Third Way, multiculturalists, you name them. The latest mutation hides behind an anti war placard and makes common cause with terrorists and equally Subjectivist Islamists.

Back to the 'Miracles' of C.S. Lewis, caught in the spiral of Cause and Effect, Naturalists - if they were right - would not be able to arrive at Truth (even if they believed in it) through Inference, or what logicians call the method of Ground and Consequent. But in Lewis' time, even if they cannot explain how humans earned the capacity for reason through natural selection, some scientifically inclined God dis-provers did concede that in fact they arrived at Truth through Reason. Some contemporary scientists, if not called Richard Dawkins, may still do so.

If you think of humanity in terms of unreasoning apes as Darwinians do, reason is the result of a slow historical process. The grandfather of psychology, Carl Gustav Jung maintained that unified consciousness is a rather late stage in human development. We think of dissociation in terms of a mental impairment, but primitive peoples speak of their second soul, which might take up residence in an animal or a tree, becoming a parent figure or a brother.

Shamans quite literally take on the consciousness of birds, or so they claim in their subjective vision. Leftist environmentalists, New Age pagans and multiculturalists are a lot closer to reverting to Rousseau's Noble Savage than we often realize.

According to the Naturalist Jung, the development of the unification of consciousness is still a work in progress. Be that as it may, the problem with evolution is, that it does not improve our 'capacity for ideas' from one generation to the next. If we are not members of the progressive species, we improve because we learn from generations that have gone before us, but we do not attain better 'idea capacity'. If anything, the prehistoric step from nothing to fire, is much more impressive than the modern step from matches to lighters.

Let's put it yet in another way. According to Darwinism, creatures respond to stimuli: negative responses are eliminated, whereas positive responses that enhance survival of the species, are multiplied. But also this argument doesn't explain the improvement of our 'idea capacity' or our capabilities for insight.

Brain cells do not produce acts of insight. The relation between response and stimulus is utterly different from the relation between knowledge and insight (or Truth). Improvement from photo sensitivity to physical vision does not bring any closer the scientific insight into what is light. People with good eye sight do not have a better understanding of the composition of light, than myopic ones.

Naturalists can only provide an account of the evolution of reason in terms which are inconsistent with our capacity for rational thinking. Or per Lewis' vexed question: "How can Naturalists be justified in so thinking? For we know they cannot". We now know the Postmodern way out of this intellectual hole: just reject the existence of Truth, Reality and Objectivity altogether and wrap Causality in a curtain of smoke, so that nobody may be reminded to pose the vital question. But if they do, tell them it's become irrelevant at our level of development.

The price of this parlour trick is steep however, too steep. To name but a few relevant shortcomings: amorality, the scientific method shredded, and the inability to overcome Evil.

Dr Sanity in "Strange Love: How they learnt to stop worrying and love the Iranian Bomb" explains the situation on a psychological level and puts it like this (we are advised to take good note):

"In today's world, those who are truly evil know they can get away with practically any horror; and that there will always be a large cadre of dupes who are willing to rationalize, excuse, or minimise any atrocity. For all their rhetoric to the contrary, the actual beneficiaries of the "antiwar" movement are the warmongering tyrants of the world whose naked aggression remains unchecked and is always rationalised away. The only outcome in the real world of all that lovely pacifism is the triumph of evil."

"War is always a terrible choice. No reasonable person could believe that it is benign or intrinsically "good" to wage war. Yet, it is sometimes a choice that reasonable people need to make simply because evil exists in the world and it cannot go unchecked--that is, not if you truly care about innocent human life."

"If you cannot consciously tap into the aggressive side of your human nature and permit the use of aggression and even violence to serve the good; you will inevitably end up serving all that is evil in the world. Pacifists cannot deal with this simple truth."

"The left's antiwar activism is simply part of its ongoing struggle against reality. Watch for more hysterical rhetoric in the days, weeks and months to come regarding the Iranian situation. Watch especially as the new meme about being able "to live with a nuclear Iran" is pushed aggressively in the press, and as supposedly "reasonable" people piously mouth it. Don't forget when you hear them say it what they are really saying; and especially don't forget that the political left once again, is perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of people on the altar of their own narcissism and psychopathology."

"The Left's struggle with reality" is a formulation that is spot on! Not only is the Leftist ideology in a struggle for existence, but Reality also stubbornly refuses to conform to their ideology. Carl Gustav Jung is quoted as saying that some people "play a lead role in a play written by an idiot". An ideology that is based on a lie, has no meaning. Can you blame them for being cynical? They hang on to their fake, worn out ideals by their fingernails.

The cooperation of the Left with Islamism in the Unholy Alliance may well be the last chance of realising Marxist Utopia on the ashes of the revolution, an Islamic one this time. This chance lost, they've simply ran out of minorities with enough clout to enforce the issue, the aim not being the well-being of the minority in question, but real, raw power.


Violence does not exist in and of itself.
It is invariably interlinked with the Lie.
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn