Obama Vs Roark: You Didn't Build That!

Left: Howard Roark's Speech in The Fountainhead (vid)
Right: Barack Obama: "You didn't build that"

In Egalitarianism, equality is the fundamental moral value: the standard of good and evil. Equality rejects equality at birth. Equality before the law isn't good enough. Equality of opportunity is insufficient. The value of equality transcends Christian and Marxist ethics; Egalitarianism wants much more: equality of outcome - HERE and NOW!

But here's the catch. Men are not equally deserving for what they are, but because they are essentially nothing. Obama's now infamous quote "You didn't build that!" perfectly sketches this implied tenet of Egalitarianism.

If you have a brain, a will, some skills, knowledge, character, desires, money, power, any ability or attribute, you were lucky, that's all. The actual producer is the state in the name of the collective.

And since the bottom is by definition made up of losers, equality can only be reached by cutting down the top. Egalitarians hold that for everone to end up with a fair share of zero, those leading the race should have their legs broken: "We must cut down the high flyers," animal rights wingnut, Peter Singer has stated.

Egalitarianism is sheer evil: strip man of all the attributes that make him an individual and the achievements that distinguish him from any other, and all men become equal. But what is left is an empty shell, in essence a zombie: the ghost of a human being.

The root of the ideology is Kantian Nihilism. The elevation of nothing to something. The zombie demands the sacrifice of the living man. The walking dead as moral man is the philosophy that rules the pOmo world!

Since there is so much unfairness, egalitarians dispense with a rational system and priorities. They compensate with swiftness and affirmative action wherever a case of perceived inequality presents itself. They are proud of their achievements, but in fact it is racist and evil.

Since egalitarians are ardent collectivists the first duty of government is overall redistribution and compensation. The moral standard is not man's life, happiness or the pursuit of it, but fairness, the elimination of nature's random inequalities.

The vehicle for compensation and redistribution is identity politics. Women seek to address sexism, the elderly ageism, the handicapped ableism, the ugly looksism, multicults imperialism, animal rights lunies speciesism. Competition is evil. There are no winners, no losers: everyone gets a prize, whether deserving or not. All demands are meritous, regardless of merit.

Egalitarianism is so detached from reality (perception as well as conception), most adherents do not even bother validating it. Equality is simply a moral axiom, an end in itself, a floating abstraction. This load of crap is ruling our world; it is the mental suicide of civilization.

The evil of Egalitarianism has come home in Environmentalism. For some reason no one has been able to explain inanimate nature has the same status as man. Therefore it has equal rights and we must stop defining better as richer, bigger, faster, more.

Watermelons (reds in a green jacket) is a charming idea, but it's inaccurate. The flag of environmentalism is not red or green, but the black of death.

Evil consequences are irrelevant to this ideology: intent is everything, so the ethics are infallible, regardless of the outcome.

While Marxism still had a vision of a better world, Egalitarianism is a postmodern construct to rescue the Socialist notion of equality (see flow chart Evolution of Socialist Strategies To Rescue Socialism From Failure); but it does so by a strategy of scorched earth: in death all men are equal. Man is a moral monster that deserves no better.

This all puts abortion and 'the right to die' in a somewhat less humanitarian light.

Related:

- Leonard Peikoff's "The DIM Hypothesis"
- Peikoff on the Election of Barack Obama

- John Rawls On Justice
- Margaret Thatcher on redistribution (vid)

- Think about this: is democracy Egalitarianism applied to government?

Transnationalism: Manmade Disaster or 'Evolution'

In the present discussion with Carl Rove and John Bolton at Glenn Beck's we see the ongoing disaster known as transnationalism clearly presented as a manmade process: it is pushed by people and politicians with an agenda.

According to others a world government is the logical outcome as man progresses on his way through history and evolution.

This meme is the result of a two centuries old phantasy, a theory set out by the reactionary philosophers Kant and Hegel who saw it as the outcome of man passing through history, bringing himself on higher levels of morality through strife and struggle.

This dualism has come to us in the form of the Marxist dialectic, which was based on Hegel's dialectic. On that basis one might say, Transnationalism is world Socialism by the backdoor.

At least Kant had the foresight to accompany his prediction with the caution that this world government might well be the "greatest tyranny ever seen". This is the state of affairs in the Third Millennium.

- Filed on Articles on "Hegel's Legacy" and "Transnational Progressivism" -

The Burning Streets: How We Got Here

Seldom was an assumption as naive as the idea prevailing since 1989 that political radicalism was over, just because the major agitator - the Soviet Union - had collapsed under its own weight.

This notion in the heads of security services, politicians and the general public supports the evidence that the West swallowed Communist disinformation and propaganda, hook, line and sinker. Here's one that pervades Western popular thinking to this very day.

Also on the level of ideas 'Leftism' and its origins, has been very badly understood.

The first harbinger of a better understanding was posited by philosopher and historian Sir Isaiah Berlin who coined the term, the Counter-Enlightenment in his book "Against the Current" in 1979 (Hogarth Press). In all probability this trouveille can be attributed to Nietzsche, who used the term "die Gegenaufklärung" at the end of the nineteenth century.

Objectivist philosopher Stephen Hicks has explained the origins and history of the anti-modern Counter-Enlightenment movement very succinctly in his 2004 tome "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault".

More recently Richard Wolin in "The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism" bridged the gap even further, showing how an amalgam of Left and Right collectivism resurfaced in Postmodernism. (Here's a sample chapter available from Princeton University Press.)

The reactionary movement sought to counter and destroy the rational and humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment, modernism. The first anti-modernist is the erroneously classified hero of the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He broke with reason and individualism, in effect laying the groundwork for Socialism and the notion that a collective has a 'will' of its own.

After Rousseau, the influential anti-philosophers Kant and Hegel furthered the anti-modernist cause against reason. Kant was remarkably effective in isolating the mind within the confines of the skull, rendering it practically useless as a tool for exploring knowledge and the universe. Precursing Orwell, he typified it as Pure Reason.

- Caption: Legion Park, Brighton Heights, Pittsburgh, center piece of the World War I Memorial by Allen G. Newman - photo by artisticpursuits -

From Kant onwards, the avant-garde considered man incapable of knowing anything. Kant's irrational theories are the greatest disaster in the history of the post Renaissance world. They are responsible for all pernicious ideas about the nature of thought that persist to this day.

It opened up the field for Marxism (Left collectivism), National Socialism (Right collectivism), currently culminating in Postmodernism. The latter think of the human species as a whole as a collective, a idea of Kantian origin.

Humanity as a collective is pushed today by swathes of world elites, from the transnational "one world" movement, to multiculturalists and Postmodern anti-globalists.

The Greeks identify the latter by their proper name, anarchists. The rest of the W est knows them as the squatter movement, animal rights activists, radical environmentalists, and anti globalists. They are not anti globalism as such, but just anti Western dominated globalism.

After Left and Right collectivism were dealt with through the realities of history and Francis Fukuyama briefly enjoyed "The End of History and the Last Man" the storms of Islamic radicalism were already brewing in the Middle East and spilling over on the streets of the countries favored by Muslim migrants.

The onset of the 21st Century saw a revival of Leftist radicalism. While the old 1968 hippy generation saw it's ideals drowned in a cesspool of drugs and experiments in social licentiousness, Postmodernism has shed itself of all values: life is futile, man's efforts are absurd in their presumptiousness and arrogance.

This radical Left movement is just as ready for a scorched earth as radical Islamism is. Whereas the former have nothing left to lose after their ideals collapsed over their ears, the latter are urged to self-sacrifice for a global victory of the collective Ummah. It is a marriage quite literally made in hell: both are negators of the life-force, but for different reasons.

A culture's implicit sense of life is all-pervasive. Theirs has translated into the negative territory of nihilism and death-worship. For Muslims man is a mere plaything in the hands of a fickle God. To Postmodernists man is a drifter in a purposeless, unknowable universe whose fate is determined by chaos and glandular secretions.

And this is how we got here.

World Security Network: "Urban Radicalism in Europe and Terrorism", by Ioannis Michaletos

Urban radicalism in Europe as portrayed by the recent riots in Athens is a constant worry of the European security services, since there is ample evidence of wider connections between radicals and terrorists.

There are two major themes to be looked upon. Firstly the relationship between the extreme-leftist terrorist groups that operate in the so-called "Mediterranean axis" - France, Italy, Greece and Spain - and secondly, the connection of these groups to Islamic extremists.

The radical - anarchist movement in Europe is pretty strong and well organized with thousands of loyal supporters. Back in 2005, the riots in Paris proved that the radicals and second-generation Muslim immigrants in France were able to form the political agenda of that time, although they were not successful in preventing Sarkozy’s ascendance to power 18 months later.

In June 2008, the French authorities and in particular the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (French Directorate-General for External Security or DGSE) announced that French anarchists were behind the attempted sabotage of the TGV railway, that if successful could have killed hundreds of people. It was also revealed that the anarchist group labeled "The Invisible Committeel" was in contact with other Italian and Greek groups over the previous period. (...)

Get it all, read the latest revelations by Greek intelligence analyst Ioannis Michaletos >>>

- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

Pomo Obama for Justice

Mary Grabar's post on PJM's "How Critical Race Theory Molded Obama" tells of Subjectivism and how it is applied to the field of justice. Obama, it would appear, is full of it ... "at least by his teaching and academic background" as a student of Professor Derrick Bell, to which we might add, and by the company he keeps.

Grabar cites the infamous Duke lacrosse rape case as an illustration of things to come.

It wakes us up how closely related Postmodernism is to Nazism and Marxism - in fact, to all forms of Socialism. All stem from the same branch of thinking. That, of the anti philosopher Immanuel Kant, who sought to fashion a form of philosophy that could deal with the contradictions that emerge, when applying reason to religion. In the process he achieved the most earth shattering feat in the history of thought: he perverted all three, religion, philosophy and reason.

As Grabar's post shows, Postmodernism is directly opposed to the philosophy of America's Founding Fathers. Which once again stresses how iconic the essentially neutral term of Change may be for an Obama tenure. Shocked? You should be. People do not know ten percent of the vileness of Subjectivism, which is responsible for all measure of pomo vice, from moral equivalence to the personal attack.

- Caption: Postmodern revisionism by "The People's Cube" -

You'll also be surprised how racist Critical Race Theory is. How pernicious and typical to Postmodernism it is, can be gauged from the Wiki: the theory states to oppose "the continuation of all forms of subordination," whereas its basic premises lead to precisely that.

Welcome in the wonderful world of Subjectivism. It centers around the anti modernist approach to 'logic', which thrives on contradiction. Hegel referred to his work with the Orwellian term, 'New Reason'.

As opposed to "all men are created equal" or "in God's image," applying the same standard to all no matter the person or the circumstances, in Subjectivist Postmodernism unequal groups are compensated in proportion to their inequality.

Apart from the absence of objective standards to ascertain how unequal a particular group is - let alone in what proportion it is to be compensated - it may be obvious to the keen observer that this is the road leading to discrimination, segregation, and Apartheid.

Grabar takes it to be Marxist, but it can be reduced much further than that. Following Kant and Hegel we see the collectivist line-up of usual suspects: Fichte, Herder, Nietzsche, Marx, the Nazi theorists, Heidegger, Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Marcuse, Rorty, Ayers, and now candidate Obama.

It is the road America took when it decided that blacks are so unequal, they need special rules and standards to create equality of opportunity, a Democratic pet project par excellence. This was direct action, or positive discrimination. It was supposed to be a temporary mechanism until equality was obtained, but over time it has become entrenched and is now the standard of 'fair practice' all over the Western world where it continues to create ... inequality.

- Cartoon by Michael Ramirez -

While equality of opportunity morphed into equality of outcome, secretly a similar mechanism was being enforced: handicapping the more powerful groups by means of political correctness, which is essentially a self-censoring device acting as a redistributor of speech rights.

The redistributive mechanisms have the secondary (?) advantage of being utterly destructive to Western civilization, precisely because they chop away at the core values of individual rights and equality. Why are we surprised to hear Barack Obama talk of the redistribution of wealth when in race relations we've done little else but redistributing?

Multiculturalism works along the same lines, ostensibly promoting equality, but achieving the exact opposite: not mixing (melting pot) and treating people as equals, but setting them apart in protective mono-cultural tribal reservations, just like the father of Aryan race theory Gobineau and the Nazis intended. Traditionally any group member with the audacity to want out, is marked a traitor for life (see "Leftist Causes Explained").

And now we have the most dangerous variant yet: Subjectivist justice. Think about the consequences! Hey, isn't that a coincidence! Doesn't that open the road to Sharia Law? To each their own legal code?

Once you leave the principle of universal equality behind, it is just as easy to go from Gobineau (race creates culture, one superior to the other) to the antisemitism of the Nazis, or the direct action of post civil rights America, or the upcoming legalization of Sharia Law in Europe.

Irrespective which race, culture or religion is seen as superior, it is still inequality: racism, sexism, ageism, Islamism, you name it. And it's going to be the new standard for which nobody's approval will be asked. It will be ushered in very gradually - possibly under UN auspices - and by the time someone notices, outfitted with some 'justice' or 'new' epithet.

The above shoots home that Postmodernism, a belief in subjective group 'narratives,' is a very dangerous philosophy (actually, it's a fallacy). It not only holds pernicious premises, it also breads Narcissists like Ayers' Weathermen, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler - pathological maniacs who are willing to sacrifice millions for the sake of their misguided 'ideals'.



- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo White House" and "Postmodern Ravage"

The Dialectics: the Strategy Against the West

On the Articles pages information and links are compiled per subject in files or dossiers. One such file way overdue is on the various dialectics and the phenomenon of petty political correctness.

Much has been said and written on the subjects, but the true purpose and origins are seldom reduced their roots. This file seeks to remedy that hiatus. The following text will be transcribed to the Articles section as an introduction to the subject.

In reaction to ultra rational positions taken by the later thinkers of the Enlightenment, a brand of 18th century German intellectuals sought to save the old order by undertaking a cultural movement countering the rationalist influences. These reactionaries are known as the German Idealists, the Romanticists, the Counter-Enlightenment movement, or the anti-modernists.

In the effort, anti-modernist philosophers Kant (1724-1804) and Hegel (1770-1831) sought to square Judeo-Christian cosmology with reason.

Kant saw philosophy as a grey area between science and religion and made it the battleground in the war on reason. His rescue effort resulted in the corruption of all three fields. Philosophy - in Aristotelian and Thomist hands a precision instrument for the exploration of reality - has never recovered from Kant's speculative theories about the nature of thought.

Kant devised a dialectical mechanism which was later further developed by Hegel to reflect contradictions: the dialectic of contradictory elements, also known as 'new reason,' making them part of reality. Thereby he inflicted on the world the self-perpetuating mechanism for progress through strife and conflict. A practical application we see around us every day is the adversarial approach to communication, common to the journalists, lawyers and politicians.

Hegel skewed Kant's proposition by replacing God with the State. Later followers posited further variations on such themes, creating in effect secular pseudo religions. This is the origin of mystical nationalism and of malignant racial and cultural theories, including Postmodern multiculturalism.

Hegel's followers divided into Right, and Left (or Young) Hegelians. Young Hegelian Karl Marx (1818-1883) further developed the dialectic, devising yet another skewed version (dialectical materialism) of Hegel's skewed version.

Marx' paranoid vision of society has divided the world into two species of humans: the oppressors and the oppressed, resulting in a perpetual struggle of minority groups against the 'power structure.' The latter should not be understood as simply 'those in power', but rather 'those in power, other than us'.

Contemporary postmodernism in whom Right and Left Hegelians have re-united (yes! their are quite a few closeted Nazis there), harnessed political correctness to today's version of Marx' class struggle. Rousseau's vista of a noble, primordial world destroyed by the logic of man's egoism and drive for civilization, might well have sired the epidemic of Western self-loathing. But it is now part and parcel of the postmodern dialectic: political correctness, a mechanism for self-control along the lines of direct action or positive discrimination with the aim of establishing redistribution of power and rights.

This dossier aims to compile examples of the practical applications of the postmodern dialectic. These often takes the shape of contemporary multicultural and social ideas concerning minority groups.

The overt, narrow objective is the liberation of the minority in question (women's lib, black power, gay rights, etc.) with the view of shifting power and rights from the 'white males power structure' to minority victim groups (everyone else). In the Pragmatist expediency this moral aim justifies any means, but methods of self-control through moral, social pressure are very popular today.

The ultimate aim however goes far beyond the narrow collective group interest: the deconstruction from within, of Western culture as it developed over the course of three millennia.

The next step on that path was set when the Left recently abandoned the patronage of the traditional historically oppressed groups in favour of their enemy, Islamism: its potentially deconstructive powers are simply too promising to pass up. The fact they have made the shift without any visible signs of cognitive dissonance says much about the ruthlessness of the underlying ideology. Next stop: 'borders are immoral.'

Dossier:

Pajamas: "Saving the Males From the NY Times," by Bernard Chapin

Members of the mainstream media not only cherish alternative lifestyles; they also wish to purge everything from our culture that prevents their realization. This was evident on Father’s Day when the New York Times Magazine commemorated the holiday by placing the misandric query, “Will Dad Ever Do His Share?,” on its cover. Inside is a lengthy expose by Lisa Belkin on this subject entitled “When Mom and Dad Share It All.” Those familiar with the contents of the Gray Lady will be unmoved by yet another attempt to denigrate fathers. After all, fulfilling the needs of politically correct oppression merchants practically has become the paper’s central purpose. (...) >>>

- Filed on Articles in "The Dialectics" -