Monday, November 10, 2014

Welcome to the Modern Progressive Art of Debate--A Political Storm in an Outhouse/

One of the most regrettable—and perhaps wholly inevitable elements of today’s life in the West is the wretched mission of liberals to eradicate any trace of intellectual disagreement with their convictions. In every conceivable arena, any non-conformist theories against progressive shibboleths—such as the current war over global warming—receive the most disrespectful and wholesale trashing.

The emotional tenor is sheer disgust and fury, while those in intellectual opposition are held in the same esteem as a brain-dead fetal piglet. This politicized environment utterly discards courtesy or politeness in its fury against dissent.

What is the source of this action? What is its most apparent goal? The goal is to silence all opposition, because the movement has an inability to engage in debate or dialogue. The source codex is Marxist cant and its political movements which have leached into every area of human endeavor, morphing into a thousand bastard children of failure.

The ultimate source of this opposition to traditional religion, classical liberalism (ie what today is termed Conservatism), and common sense, can be traced to ancient Gnosticism, according to Eric Voegelin. Cyril O’Regan, in Gnostic Apocalypse: Jacob Boehme’s Haunted Narrative, refers to this as the Gnostic Return to modernity.

The following essay traces this story and also gives examples of the hateful rhetoric of leftist demagogues who often don’t even understand their own beliefs, yet still ladle personal attacks upon all who disagree with their ideas.

I. Political Storm in an Outhouse

A. Disagreeing is Evil

It is a simple fact of modern society that leftists and progressives cannot accept any level of disagreement with their theories. In fact, they positively boil with anger that anyone claiming to be educated or a member of society in-good-standing would dare take issue with their conclusions. This is strange because it borders on the kind of fanaticism which demands one be treated as a deity. This cannot lead to any kind of psychiatric diagnosis which portends long-term good mental health.
The upshot of this problem creates a potent societal dilemma on several levels, which could literally destroy the Republic. A lesser issue is our level of political discourse has degenerated to such a low standard that dialogue has been replaced by personal insult. This then leads to a larger problem. If dissent of any kind is no longer tolerated, and those who disagree are immediately demonized and removed from any influence, how on earth will false ideas ever be rectified?
Further, why on earth would any group of people, who clearly profess a politically oriented movement, such as socialists and other neo-liberals, claim a God’s-eye level of knowledge and wisdom? And what exactly is it that liberals believe, anyway? For the most part, liberals accept socialism as a default summary of their beliefs.

B. Hume’s Is/Ought Fallacy

One startling element of neo-liberalism is the claim that the world actually runs by how it should run, not by any other measure. This is an inversion of a famous dilemma—theis/ought discussion of David Hume, “Hume’s Guillotine.” Here, the Scots philosopher stated it was a mistake to claim the world should be a certain way was because it was that way, already. So, for example—it is a mistake to claim that slavery is good because people of the past accepted it.
This point is then inverted by claiming that because a person or group believes a thing should be a certain way, it already is that way. As Hume pointed out, it’s also mistaken to claim that there is a moral component to how things work. For example, arguing the Minimum Wage should be raised because it morally benefits society and the economy, does not prove the measure is essentially cost-free, or that it will have no ill effects on employment.

C. Literary Examples

1. Spirit Level Deception
Several examples will reveal how this ought/is fallacy has played out recently. A book claiming the wealthy do not really benefit from their (illicit) riches was published by Kate Pickett, titled The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. While an impressively progressive idea, the book was quickly debunked as wishful thinking, in another book by Christopher Snowdon, titled The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left’s New Theory of Everything. Snowdon’s book revealed that Spirit Level suffered from bad data, confirmation bias, and wishful thinking. Simply another leftist finding socialism’s anti-reality dogma reflected in her view of the world.

2. Piketty’s Grand Hoax
Another book again confirming socialist dogma was later skewered by analysts pouring over the data. Frenchman Thomas Piketty, who wrote Capital in the Twenty-First Century, claims Marx was right, calling for wealth re-distribution. Socialist Robert B. Reich described it as, “An extraordinary sweep of history backed by remarkably detailed data and analysis… Piketty’s economic analysis and historical proofs are breathtaking.” Undoubtedly, the world’s Marxists were delighted when he demanded a global wealth tax. Despite all of Piketty’s data, the Financial Times scrutinized his work and found it deeply flawed, in an article titled, Piketty findings undercut by errors. Forbes also reviewed the work and stated,

In Capital, Piketty presents a painstakingly researched case for doing what progressives ranging from Paul Krugman to Barack Obama want to do anyway, which is to raise taxes and expand the power and reach of government. Unfortunately for liberals, Piketty gets almost everything wrong, starting with the numbers.

II. Example of Rude “Debates” by Public Liberals

A. Science

Cosmology: Lawrence M. Krauss, “Religion will disappear in a Generation
Cosmologist and theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss does not merely disagree with religious folks, but claims that religion itself is such a hoax, that without public support it will disappear in a generation:

What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes and show the silly reasons why they each did what they did. Instead of shying away from it, we have to explicitly educate people to confront their own misconceptions. People say, ‘Well, religion has been around since the dawn of man. You’ll never change that’ ...This issue of gay marriage, it is going to go away, because if you’re a child, a 13-year-old, they can’t understand what the issue is. It’s gone. One generation is all it takes.
Krauss, who appears to lack working knowledge of religious beliefs, is one of the most vociferous critics of religion, and identifies as an anti-theist, much like Richard Dawkins. Yet, while he states religion is not needed for morality or ethics, he claims it is not clear to him that incest is wrong. Such a statement simply affirms that his source of moral authority is deeply defective. Further, while Krauss asserts “truth” is a necessary presupposition for science, others scientists disagree. Moreover, the amount of falsified data some scientists use to promote their own agendas, such as found with Global Warming, is shocking, and disproves Krauss’ truth claim.

B. Global Warming

Those who deny Anthropogenic “man-made” Global Warming (AGW) are “Deniers.” Rep. Peter DeFazio calls the “deniers” “blathering idiots” on the US House floor. He was incensed anyone would claim the Artic Vortex disproves Global Warming. Even Obama joined in the insults against Deniers, in a 2014 commencement speech,

Today’s Congress, though, is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change. They’ll tell you it’s a hoax, or a fad. “Let me translate: What that means is, ‘I accept that manmade climate change is real, but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot.’
In another article, the obvious connection between denying AGW and a lack of intellect and education is outlined by George Monbiot, who writes,
...drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence, but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the “critical pathway” from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to “right-wing ideologies that promote coherence and order” and “emphasize the maintenance of the status quo…The Republican party, with its “prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science” is appealing to what he calls the “low-information voter” or the “misinformation voter.
Given that temperatures have not been elevated for the last few decades, and promised catastrophes have never materialized, it is hard to imagine what evidence would ever be considered by this cabal of insulters as evidence against their beliefs.

C. Economics: Ferguson Deflates Krugman

  The intemperate and rude nature of modern liberal criticism is well presented by the story of how the stunningly arrogant NY Times columnist Paul Krugman was humbled by historian Nial Ferguson, as detailed in Krugtron the Invincible, Part 1. (and Krugtron the Invincible, Part 2Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3) It is speculated the thrashing was so complete that Krugman actually lost his Ivy League teaching position because of it, in Is Paul Krugman Leaving Princeton In Quiet Disgrace?
Ferguson, a Harvard professor and Hoover Institute writer decided to go after Krugman when the Times writer personally attacked him, as he has repeatedly done to many other academics and writers. Ferguson writes,

You may ask: Why have I taken the trouble to do this? I have three motives. The first is to illuminate the way the world really works, as opposed to the way Krugman and his beloved New Keynesian macroeconomic models say it works. The second is to assert the importance of humility and civility in public as well as academic discourse. And the third, frankly, is to teach him the meaning of the old Scottish regimental motto: nemo me impune lacessit (‘No one attacks me with impunity’).

Finally—and most important—even if Krugman had been “right about everything,” there would still be no justification for the numerous crude and often personal attacks he has made on those who disagree with him. Words like “cockroach,” “delusional,” “derp,” “dope,” “fool,” “knave,” “mendacious idiot,” and “zombie” have no place in civilized debate. I consider myself lucky that he has called me only a “poseur,” a “whiner,” “inane”—and, last week, a “troll.”
This example of Krugman, who the liberal writer Michael Tomasky claims has gone “from being a center-left scholar to being a liberal polemicist,” is just one of tens of thousands of professional liberals who regularly rain down opprobrium on non-liberals. Further, as seen above, it is typical for liberals to be not just nasty, but utterly clueless about what they are debating. But how would this be possible?

III. Gnostic Return—Self Infatuation as Religious Enlightenment

A. Gnostic History

So how does Gnosticism fit in with today’s liberal elites? According to the New Advent encyclopedia, the Gnostics had a pre-Christian Oriental origin. The root of Gnosis means “knowledge,” and the sect taught salvation was the result of knowledge, not faith. Gnosticism represents the incursion of Eastern religious ideas, and was introduced into Christianity. According to Eric Voegelin, in The New Science of Politics, Gnosticism reemerged in the modern era with disastrous results.
Voegelin explains how the roots of modern liberalism grew from a Catholic heresy extolled by Joachim of Flora, a 12th century rogue Italian monk. Joachim’s writings became the outline for all future leftist thought, such as Marx’s works. Jacob Boehmewas instrumental in injecting the Gnostic ideas into 17th century Christianity.

B. Six Stages of Gnosticism & the Divine Revelation

One of the hallmarks of gnostic thought is it is typically discussed in an unclear style. According to O’Regan, six claims can be deduced from its authors, such as Jacob Boehme, a shoemaker and self-styled mystic. Following are the 6 stages of Gnostic belief, as outlined in Boehme:
  1. The classic Christian divine manifestation morphs into divine self-revelation.
  2. The “divine light” is refracted into humans by God.
  3. The Fall of humans into sin, engineered by Satan, causes the temporal world to be created.
  4. Humans destroyed the mirrored divine image by repeating Lucifer’s obsessive demand for freedom.
  5. Christ appears as a 2nd Adam, a work of rebirth.
  6. History is a work of salvation, from creation to Apocalypse. Finally, mankind will re-enter the original divine paradise that Satan helped destroy.
So here we see, if modern liberals are influenced by Gnosticism, they tend to automatically believe their instincts or feelings will guide them towards all truth. Further, they will also tend to inject these feelings with religious fervor. This then explains the fury and shock liberals display when contradicted.


It is certain that modern liberalism has been wholly subsumed under the influence of Gnosticism. This explains the disconnected policy and rhetoric, as well as the fiery self-righteous denunciation against opponents. This movement also influenced the Fascist and Nazi camps, as well as the Russian and Chinese communists. Certainly, only delusional thinking can explain the wildly violent and wholly destructive actions of these evil men. Likewise, we must understand that liberalism must be strenuously checked, or it will go off track, leaving all kinds of misery and destruction in its wake.

No comments:

Post a Comment