There has for the past century, been an intellectual onslaught on the idea of the world being made of Goodies and Baddies. For instance; to state that a novel, movie, TV series is 'divided into' Gs and Bs is regarded as absolutely damning of any pretentions to High Art suitable for adults.
Instead, status is given to 'dark' characters, the antihero, moral ambiguity - and in general the idea that everybody is mixed but - underneath the best people are those who most explicitly subvert, transgress, invert (what remains of...) traditional (Christian) values.
OK. As usual, there is an element of truth in the 'simplistic Goodies and Baddies' critique (else it would gain no traction); and the real problem is the motivation with which the critique is implemented: I mean, that the motivation driving the critique is evil - while the critique itself misrepresents the nature of good and evil.
Good and Bad refer to the two side in the spiritual war between God and devil, divine creation and chaos. It is these 'sides' that are G and B, and a Goodie is one who takes the side of God; while a Baddie is one who takes the side against God. Individual men and women (organizations and nations) are, of course, mixed and ambiguous - but their Good-ness or Bad-ness come from the side the side they have committed themselves to serve.
In a world without God, rejecting of the reality of God (and the devil); a world that denies the reality of divine creation - naturally, almost everybody is a Baddie. When nearly everybody serves evil, and is a Baddie; it is unsurprising that so much effort has been put into denying the validity of the concept Goodies and Baddies. What better way of pursuing evil undetected?
Meanwhile, the entire world is convulsed by change in a way never before seen; and the mainstream consensus response is that (just as with the mass media) there are no Goodies and Baddies because Real Life is too complex to yield to such 'simplistic' analyses.
From this mainstream perspective we are supposed to see everything that happened across the world since 2020 in functional terms - e.g. it is all-about-health. There is, of course, a moral imperative element; but the moral implications of pursuing health are regarded as un-problematically self-evident; to the point that even discussing the implications of self-described health measures is itself a failure of morality.
Thus - from the mainstream perspective - the worst people (the only truly evil ones) are those who attempt to discern good and evil, who talk in terms of good or evil motivations driving changes - and those who regard their moral analysis as based-upon objective reality. Such are the worst of the worst.
It is a strange situation. Public morality is supposed to be at the same time self-evident and dictated by self-evident 'goods' such as healthism, antiracism and environmentalism; and yet also morality is asserted to be non-objective, culturally-determined, a product of socialization and ideological manipulation (i.e. propaganda).
The 'lesson' drawn from this analysis is (something like) that 'therefore' we need to use socialization and propaganda to create and sustain those self-evidently 'good' values that derived from self-evidently 'good' principles such as healthism, antiracism and environmentalism.
Implicitly the value-judgments used in deciding what exact policies really do promote overall health, antiracism etc also claim to be self-evident - to the point that even discussing (let alone criticizing) the inevitable judgments behind actual policies and actions is itself regarded as crazy or evil ("conspiracy theories!").
Somehow judgments about, for example, the result of balancing predicted benefits for one person or group against the harms to another, are supposed to be determined by 'the facts'; to the point that any other view is 'anti-science'.
So, will still live in a world of Goodies and Baddies - and indeed the sanctions against Baddies are being ramped-up on a weekly basis - yet the whole business of discerning between good and evil, and the basis of value judgments behind policies and actions, is implicitly meant to be so clear, obvious and entailed that only a moral monster would even attempt to mention them!
(And, increasingly, he will not even be permitted to mention them - or will be punished if he does.)
Our world is one of intense and pervasive moralizing - moralizing is celebrated and indeed mandatory all the time and everywhere, including even previous exempted areas such as mathematics and biology; yet accompanied by a flat denial that moralizing has occurred! So, applying antiracist or feminist moral theories to physics and chemistry is, somehow, Not moralizing; but is itself 'science'!
A world of ever more, and badder, Baddies; yet a world where evil has no definition and is denied objective reality!... In particular, talking-about genuinely-evil motivations among those who make and implement policies, is absolutely prohibited in mainstream public discourse.
The maximum critique allowed is that of well-intended incompetence or ignorance; but the idea of real evil motivation (the desire to do evil - for the sake of evil) from leaders (whether leaders of the world, nations, corporations or bureaucracies) is so far off the map as to be literally incomprehensible - the babblings of a madman (i.e. "conspiracy theorist").
A century of value-subversion and -inversion has rendered the mass of Men incompetent to make discernments, so wholly incompetent as not to know their own incapacity; and utterly lacking in confidence (hence courage) to cleave to their own evaluations when these contradict the official ones.
In practice, therefore, most people tacitly support a totalitarian world in which morals and values are devised, dictated and enforced by a small and cohesive 'elite' - and a world in which moral certainty is a direct product of the suppression of moral analysis and evaluation.
Yet at the same time, a world where individual moral freedom (relativism) is championed in media and the arts.
**
It is as if the whole world is standing passively on a narrow conveyor-belt, close-penned by the walls sliding past - being told (by 24/7 media and information sources) that they have absolute and individual freedom to go wherever they personally wish... yet always being pushed irresistibly by the moving floor and the press of bodies fore and aft; and unable to move to either side.
In such a moving mass; any one loudly questioning the nature and value of the unseen destination of trying to go somewhere else, will make life harder and perhaps more dangerous for the majority in the short term. So there is mass support for preventing such questioning, and for eliminating the source of potential disruption.
Given the inexorability of the conveyor belt in its corridor, and the inevitability of immediate extra suffering of the majority from any dissenting person or group; it seem obvious common sense that it is best for everyone when everyone is maximally cooperative and positive about the state of things.
It is best for everyone, therefore, if (at any given moment) there is just one source of aspirations, attitudes and knowledge; and if such a source is in harmony with the nature and goals of the conveyor belt. It is better is everyone regards that one source as coherent, and better that any argument that it is not coherent is suppressed.
As the needs of the system change and the direction of the conveyor belt alters - the one source will inevitable change its message. But it is best for everybody if such changes in direction or destination are immediately forgotten (i.e. not discussed, preferably not thought-about); and if Now is regarded as always - as well as always-coherent.
So it goes. So it continues...
Until some of those value-controllers who stand outside of the conveyor belt System decide to 'have a bit of fun' - and start encouraging individuals and groups to despise, resent, enjoy the suffering of those around them.
The spiteful sadists among the leadership elite like to broadcast messages of 'partial enlightenment', of cynical hedonism, they expose the material nature of the System; they encourage cynicism about the process and destination, they suggest that the life is always and inevitably horrible and ends badly, so we might as well seize whatever pleasures we can, whenever we can...
Here and now the stronger may make a somewhat better life at the expense of the weaker - more space, more pleasure, less suffering - especially the pleasures of imposing oneself and enjoying others' misery.
Thus sabotage and treachery, riots and lootings are encouraged - from within the leadership elite. The moving conveyor belt continues, the walls are as narrow as ever - but the now cynical-hedonic-resentful masses are manipulated to be at each others throats.
The floor is littered with dead and dying victims - the winners are encouraged to feel great about the situation... as they continue onward to the exact same destination as always.
Is there any alternative? Yes, but it is on the spiritual plane. Then, those on the conveyor belt find that they can - in fact - see beyond their situation and regard the whole in a broader context.
Suddenly, they imaginatively look upon the world from beyond it; look upon mortal life from eternity, look upon the prevalent Hell-bound evil from the perspective of Heaven.
The realize that the controllers may be able physically to constrain everybody onto a narrow conveyor belt - for a while; but that anyone who chooses can escape the situation in thought and aspiration; and, after a while (after death), can escape physically and forever to a divinely-creative world, ruled by love, in which they can participate to the fullness of their wishes and capacities.
And then - when they return to the here-and-now of life on the narrow belt, evil in both actuality and destination - everything looks different, everything is different.
Freed alike from the perspective imposed by 'the one source', and from the spiteful-resentful attitude of cynical hedonism - at every movement, all kind of spiritual possibilities are evident.
A spiritually-grounded life is therefore better here and now - superior to passive obedience and hedonic cynicism; but more importantly the ultimate destination is better.
From which is it surely obvious why it is vital that the spiritual dimension be regarded as unreal, delusional, wishful-thinking in mainstream public discourse controlled by the Global Establishment.
The spiritual is our only hope - it is also our best hope. It has the power positively to transform past, present and future; and the power to lend courage to that desire.
Without the spiritual, there is only cynicism and hedonism and realistic despair.
We can, must and do choose which we want; and which is real...
Because the way it works is: what we truly want, is what becomes really-real.
It works both ways. The conveyor belt to Hell is because That is what people want. And the spiritual path to Heaven is there for those who choose That. We personally have such power; but only when we personally take that responsibility.
Truth is the opposite of Spiderman's credo: With great responsibility comes great power.
1 comment:
An essay well-worth reading, thank you.
Much to ponder, but it seems basically true to me what you wrote.
Without meaning, life has nothing to sustain it.
It's obvious that more and more people, and pretty much all atheists/materialists, are stuck in a cycle of despair.
I feel it when I talk to most people.
They seem to sense that I doubt the "narrative." I sense the anger directed towards me at times, but I try to register it then continue on.
The atheist/materialist would claim that reality just is, and you have no choice: you either accept their reality, or you are delusional.
The fact that most of their assupmtions, and models of reality (e.g. global warming but it's below zero F here!) are based on lies, and that even by the standards of pure objective science the reigning models and theories is an irony lost on them, because they've given up true science, which is a process and not a result.
What a time to be alive!
You mentioned real heroism the other day. It's never been more needed or more lacking.
Post a Comment