Monday, February 11, 2008

The Left's Default Position: Coercion (III), the Practice

Continued from part II: "The Left's Default Position: Coercion, the Philosophy"

In this series we investigate why ideologies rooted in subjectivism sooner or later use coercion. For the sake of avoiding repetition, in case you need further information, please refer back to part I and part II.

There are two ways of convincing someone who disgrees: by a process of reason such as a debate, or by some form of coercion - or is it? As we shall see, the chasm between the two schools on the nature of thought, is wide and cannot be overcome: objectivism and subjectivism are mutually exclusive. Debate doesn't work where subjectivists are involved, objectivists cannot be cajoled into taking some arbitrary position by coercion.

Let's have a look at the peaceful option: parley. This works fine among objectivists, but becomes useless when subjectivists are involved. It is impossible to debate a point with someone who is convinced that anything you say is just .... well, your personal opinion instead of fact. Ultimately - in the eyes of the subjectivist, who doesn't accept objective standards - the outcome of such 'conversations' is always one personal taste pitted against another. Hence the shouting matches, the ad hominems and all the other Postmodern 'debating techniques' that are also at the heart of the Alinsky tactics for radicals: intimidation.

Let's see if coercion works to convince those who cling to reason. The problem here is that minds can be silenced or destroyed, but they cannot be made to accept something against their better judgment. To the objectivist any position is morally interchangeable with any other, given his belief that there are no objective standards by which truth can be attained. The subjectivist reels in frustration with so much intransigence.

It is not possible to start and direct a thought process in rational people by force: A = A even under the most vile circumstances. Therefore dictators resort to immobilizing their subjects' minds by oppression and irrational Ukases, what in Soviet times was termed, "the truth of the day".

Leonard Peikoff in "The Ominous Parallels" makes the case that the Nazi death camps were actually controlled experiments in mass mind control: what do absurd situations, that bear no relation whatsoever with known reality, do to the human mind ... absurd, as in the surrealism of Vienna walzes accompanying people to the gas chambers?

Violence, alienation, drug abuse and alcoholism are all methods to halt rational thinking. Some drugs however, like cannabis and LSD enhance superior subjectivist 'thought.' Irrational minds however can solve the problem without such aides: by means of evasion they're able to rationalize whatever they are expected to 'believe'.

A recent example by the Dutch version of Bono illustrates the fallacy of subjectivism rather well: his solution for world peace would be to take away man's free will. As this happens to be the faculty for moral judgment, this particular solution speaks volumes of the tendency of immoral coercion inherent in subjectivist thought: any dictator would be proud of such a proposition.

Kant sought to preserve religion against the advances of reason by declaring the mind a useless tool for acquiring knowledge. The result is anti-reason, which sees force as a legitimate method to make renegades do their duty towards the collective. One can see how idealists can become ruthless capos, and how cultured peoples can end up producing the most toxic ideologies.

In Objectivism the initiation of force is evil, but self-defense is a moral obligation. Refraining from it would be tantamount to aiding and abetting evil. Retaliation is also warranted against an irrational enemy, which repudiates the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike. This is because these enemies themselves allow only such methods. This is not 'stooping to their level', but on the contrary eleminating it.

Subjectivists lack the philosophical tool that would lead to the conclusion, that the problem lies in what they perceive as the solution: statism. Therefore Leftists always believe they will perform better than the preceding lot, which leads to an endless succession of Socialists blaming so-and-so for the bankruptcies, but promising they will do Socialism better this time around. In reality, the ideology has been well tested and was found wanting every time, since the basis is not reality but make-belief, a racket from which no participant is exempted.

It is often said that the media are biased. This presumes the press actually have an objective starting point from which they deviate. This is a faulty diagnosis of the symptoms. They aren't biased: they are simply subjective. Thought creates reality: reality is whatever you want it to be: the projection of reality upon their minds. This is then filtered by the contents into the substance of subjective thought: emotions and percepts.

An popular imperative among subjective thinkers is not to pass moral judgment on others. But, as we have seen, since opponents cannot be debated through lack objective standards, this imperative is thrown to the wind as the opponent is deminized in the foulest possible matter. Hence it is possible today for Leftists to sincerely ask Sarah Palin fans how they can like this woman: take your pick, "she's a creationist, a Christian fundamentalist, she's against abortion, isn't she?"

Person and ideas have become merged into one inseparable caricature of reality. Neither a motivation nor a clarification is necessary: the primitivity of the school yard - fatso, four eyes! They fail to realize what dangerous ground they on. The next step is active persecution. It's no wonder they sound like Fascists! That is because they use the same philosophical tools: the talking points have reached the status of absolute dogma, while the method of implementation is pragmatism, an act of the will.

Examples of such positions are everywhere, but to mention just one for clarity: the finer points of this issue aside, Darwin's theory of evolution is true (dogma), because it is expedient to what we believe (pragmatism). All should embrace this belief because the alternative would be unthinkable. Once embraced by the gatekeepers as admissable, the same mechanism can be used on any other subject, an individual or a collective: "the bailout Bill was the only solution to the credit crisis", "Palin is a b*tch", "all Jews are parasites", no further questions or motivation required.


- "Blurring the Border between Reality and Perception" (series)
- "When Reason Fails" (series)

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" and "The Political Pathology Asylum" -


James Higham said...

Wish I could find something I disagreed with you about.

RatePoint Business Reviews