So, I lied, I told my wife yesterday that I had grown
totally fed up with the prevailing Zeitgeist for the simple reason that it has
killed even the very possibility of having fun, of enjoying the normal natural
joys of life free from the ever grasping cloying and authoritarian hand of the
MAN. In an age when literally everything has been politicized, from our medical
care, our sexuality, and certainly that most liberal of all ideas, namely the
free market and capitalism. I need to understand why something that I saw in
Scandinavia which closely resembles the Borg-like mind meld reminiscent of a
dystopian Star Trek episode has now arrived in North America to capture the
minds and hearts of a considerable proportion of the population. This is not to
say that Norwegians do not each have unique personalities, but I do mean that
despite this they will react to the same stimuli virtually identically when
confronted with ideas and behaviours that contradict their shared mojo. I have often
previously spoken about Janteloven (Tall Poppy Syndrome), so I won’t bore you
with that now, other than to state that the ten foundational ideas of Janteloven
are the petri dish in which ideological possession grows. Basically, it is ten
ways of stating that your individuality is meaningless, prideful, and that no
one gives a shit about you anyway.
It is weird, it is illiberal, it is authoritarian, and it
is hiding behind kid gloved Marxofascism where even family members and dear
friends are disassociating themselves from those for whom they formerly cared
deeply. If we do not manage to come to terms with this it will eventually
destroy all social cohesion and it will put an end to democratic government
under the Rule of Law. In fact, it has almost already done so where we are
suffering under a political class who think that they are above the law. They
live by the adage "laws for thee but not for me!"
This will be the topic of today's episode on the Food for
the Faithful Channel. If such things interest you, please ensure that you have
subscribed to my vodcast.
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Budziszewski
“Dr. J. Budziszewski (born 1952) is an American
philosopher and professor of government and philosophy at the University of
Texas at Austin, where he has taught since 1981. He specializes in ethics,
political philosophy, and the interaction of these two fields with religion and
theology.[1]
Budziszewski has written widely, in both
scholarly and popular venues, about a variety of moral and political issues
including abortion, marriage, sexuality, capital punishment, and the role of
judges in a constitutional republic. His principal area of publication is the
theory of natural law. He has been a leading advocate for natural law theory
over the past twenty years.[2] In this context, he has given particular
attention to the problem of moral self-deception: what happens when human
beings tell themselves that they don't know what they really do. Among his
research interests are also virtue ethics and the problem of tolerance.[1]
His research on self-deception:
One of Budziszewski's research interests has
been to analyze what he regards as general human tendency to self-deception.[5]
The problem arises from a theoretical tenet defended by Thomas Aquinas, who he
said "we must say that the natural law, as to general principles, is the
same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge."[6] This claim
amounts to saying that the most general principles of right and wrong are not
only right for everyone but known to everyone, even though the same cannot be
said of their remote implications. According to Budziszewski, Aquinas is right.
He argues that often, even when people appear to be ignorant of the moral
basics, the hypothesis that they are self deceived provides a better
explanation of their actual behavior.[7]
This leads to Budziszewski's theory of guilty
knowledge, of violated conscience. Following Aquinas, Budziszewski
distinguishes between synderesis, which supplies the first principles of
practical reason and which he calls "deep conscience," and
conscientia, which he calls "surface conscience" and supplies
judgments about particular acts. According to Budziszewski, conscience operates
in three different modes: In the cautionary mode, it alerts us to the peril of
moral wrong and generates an inhibition against committing it. In the
accusatory mode, it indicts us for wrong we have already done. In the avenging
mode, it punishes the individual who knowingly does wrong but refuses to admit
that he or she has done so. Conscience is therefore teacher, judge, or executioner,
depending on the mode in which it is working.[8]
Apart from his scholarly philosophical work,
Budziszewski is known for articles and books of Christian apologetics,
addressed to a broad audience including young people and college students.
Known as one of the prominent evangelical intellectuals in America and former
atheist, Budziszewski was received into the Roman Catholic Church on Easter
Sunday 2004.[3] After his conversion, he continues to address his writings and
lectures on Christian themes to Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians,
as well as to those who are uncertain of their beliefs but are sincerely
seeking.[3][4]”
So, I will read from “THE ILLUSION OF MORAL
NEUTRALITY” by Dr. J. Budziszewski published in August of 1993
You may read this article for yourself as the following
link: https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/08/the-illusion-of-moral-neutrality
“Nietzsche claimed that if men took God
seriously, they would still be burning heretics at the stake. In the same
spirit, one supposes, are the notions that if men really cherished moral truth,
they would suppress all beliefs that they considered wrong, and that if men
still cared about the sanctity of the marriage bed, they would go back to
making adulterers wear the scarlet A.
Today two different groups of people agree with
conditional statements of this sort. In the first group are the ordinary
bigots, who are always among us. The second are a kind of modern backlash—call
it the reaction—found principally among the “cultural elite.” For instance,
whereas the bigots respond to Nietzsche’s conditional by saying, “Yes, that’s
why we should burn heretics,” the reactionaries respond to it by saying, “No,
that’s why we should suppress the public expression of belief in God.”
These reactionaries claim to love tolerance,
but, misunderstanding it, they strangle it in their embrace. Their creed is
that intolerance is born at the same moment as public moral commitments; that
morality must therefore be a “private” affair; that in order to say that
tolerance is a good, we must forbear to say aloud that anything else is good or
evil. Their god is Neutrality. In certain intellectual regions he travels under
other names such as Autonomy and Rights.
We meet this jealous and negating god on the
philosophic right, where conservatives like Michael Oakeshott tell us that the
specific and limited activity of “governing” has “nothing to do” with natural
law or morals. We encounter him on the philosophic left, where liberals like
John Rawls and Marxists like Jurgen Habermas invent devices like the Veil of
Ignorance and the Ideal Speech Situation to convince us that if we wish to
understand truly the principles of justice, we must pretend to forget not only
who we are, but also everything we ever thought we knew about good and evil. We
meet this god in law, where many jurists treat ethical distinctions such as
“family” vs. “non-family” as “invidious classifications” that deny citizens the
equal protection of the law. We meet him in education, where elementary school
children are offered books like Daddy’s Roommate, Heather Has Two Mommies, and
Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. In fact, we meet this god
everywhere: in the university, in the movie
theatre, in many churches and synagogues, and, it goes without saying, on the
even more ubiquitous altar of the television.
It might seem remarkable that people who insist
that tolerance means moral neutrality should themselves be so earnest in
ridiculing those who aren’t neutral. But of course, they themselves aren’t
neutral either. The scandal of Neutrality is that its worshipers cannot answer
the question “Why be neutral?” without committing themselves to particular
goods—social peace, self-expression, self-esteem, ethnic pride, or what have
you—thereby violating their own desideratum of Neutrality. Yet even this is
merely a symptom of a deeper problem, namely, there is no such thing as
Neutrality. It isn’t merely unachievable, like a perfect circle; it is
unthinkable and unapproachable, like a square circle. Whether we deem it better
to take a stand or be silent, we’ve offended this god in the very act of
deeming.
To see the folly of neutralism is one thing; to
escape from it is another. Many who understand perfectly well that tolerance
cannot be defended by suspending judgment about goods and evils have difficulty
defending it in any other way. They suspect the worst: that if neutrality is a
square circle, then so is tolerance, along with all of its component virtues
like objectivity and fairness. They fear that by leaving the reactionaries,
they will join with the ordinary bigots. They are right to fear this trap, but
make the difficulty of avoiding it greater than it is.”
From Bing AI, “The nature of ideological
possession”:
Ideological possession is a complex phenomenon
that can be caused by several factors:
1. **Extreme Identification with an
Ideology**: Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung believed that psychological
problems arise when the natural balance of the human psyche is disrupted. This
can occur through extreme identification with a particular ideology, leading to
what Jung called "ideological possession"².
2. **Excessive Group Cohesiveness**: One
potential cause of ideological possession is excessive group cohesiveness. An
extravagant amount of group togetherness and harmony can lead to becoming
indoctrinated due to individuals of a group exhibiting too little skepticism
and thus, employing too few critical thinking skills in the process³.
3. **Fear and Cognitive Dissonance**:
Pathologically, ideological possession may even be understood as the
substitution of that highest value by another, such as Self-Preservation. This
often happens when Evidence receptors become overwhelmed by Fear (the most
powerful epistemic pathogen) or deactivated to prevent Cognitive Dissonance⁴.
4. **Exclusion of External Opinions and
Influences**: Keeping an open mind is an important aspect to prevent
becoming ideologically possessed³.
These factors can lead to a loss of
objectivity, a sense of righteous conviction, and a tendency to demonize those
with different beliefs². In political contexts, ideological possession can be
particularly concerning as it can lead to polarization and even violence².
Source: Conversation with Bing, 2024-02-10
(1) Final
Thoughts: Explaining Ideological Possession | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39642-7_15.
(2) What
is ideology and why can it possess people. https://healthybodyathome.com/what-is-ideology-and-why-can-it-possess-people/.
(3) Ideological
Possession Is the Real Pandemic - Brownstone Institute. https://brownstone.org/articles/ideological-possession-real-pandemic/.
(4) The
Diagnosis and Treatment of Ideological Possession. https://fee.org/articles/the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-ideological-possession/.
From Bing AI “Ideological possession has
become a significant issue in the present time due to several reasons”:
1. **Polarization and Violence**: When
individuals or groups become ideologically possessed, they may see opposing
political viewpoints as not just different, but as fundamentally wrong or even
evil³. This can lead to polarization and even violence³.
2. **Threat to Healthy Discourse**: Ideological
possession is to healthy political discourse as scientism is to science¹. Any
ideology has the potential to be deadly when advanced by those who are so sure
of their own knowledge and moral outlook that they would impose it against the
protestations of those affected by it¹.
3. **Social and Societal Impact**:
Understanding what motivates people to join violent ideological groups and
engage in acts of cruelty against others is of great social and societal
importance². Ideological obsession changes people's social interactions by
making them gravitate towards like-minded individuals who support ideological
violence².
4. **Resistance to Communication
Strategies**: Ideologically obsessed individuals are prone to psychological
reactance, making them immune to communication strategies intended to dissuade
them from using violence². In fact, messages espousing non-violence can have
the opposite effect by reinforcing their violence-supporting ideology².
These factors contribute to the increasing
concern about ideological possession in our current times. It's important to
promote open-mindedness, critical thinking, and respectful dialogue to mitigate
the negative impacts of ideological possession¹²³.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 2024-02-10
(1) Final
Thoughts: Explaining Ideological Possession | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39642-7_15.
2) The Diagnosis and Treatment
of Ideological Possession. https://fee.org/articles/the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-ideological-possession/.
(3) The sociocognitive
processes of ideological obsession: review and .... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2020.0144.
(4) undefined. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0144.
My conclusions:
Firstly, despite Bing AI being programmed by those who themselves
may well be ideologically possessed, its ability to collate vast amounts of
digitized written material pertinent to the topic at hand makes it an
invaluable tool for doing research. If questioned correctly it can save
hundreds of hours of work searching the web or physical libraries for pertinent
materials.
Secondly, ideological possession must first have its root
causes analyzed so that we may counter these pathological ideas effectively
since use of logic and reason will be insufficient to engage the ideologically addled.
Thirdly, and most importantly for me, the very fact that Christians
are paying so little attention to this attack on our faith and values is deeply
disturbing to me. Ideological possession is the basis for the most pernicious immoral
false doctrines of our time. Why Christian leaders are not doing a better job of
equipping the Church of Christ to fight the good fight is literally beyond my poor
ability to comprehend.
Lastly, the fact that these toxic ideas are undermining our
faith, our family and seek to rob us of our property yet so few even dare to
speak about it is to me remarkable. But hey, what do I know? Please tell me what
you think. Or are you like so many today who are unaware of how radically illiberal
things around us have been altered with no end in sight? How do you remain
unaware that ideological possession opposes our previously held fundamental values
such that you can still remain silent, compliant, and ignorant of how cosmically
dangerous that our present dilemma truly is?
No comments:
Post a Comment