Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Secularization Of America

(I am not there yet but....) I am starting to see that there is no "Right and Left".

A better model is that there is a "Prevailing Power" that controls -
  1. Economics
  2. Cultural and Social Norms
  3. Academic and Intellectual Narratives
Then there is the opposition force that seeks to change the prevailing order.

You probably do not have the Flash Player (Get Adobe Flash Player Here) installed for your browser or the video files are misplaced on your server!

The point that this understanding provides is that neither side should be seen as intrinsically oppressive or charitable.  When either grabs power they exhibit the same desire to enforce and retain their controls.  Oppression of dissent is appears to be a common attribute of either.

One must appraise the ultimate value of the respective positions based on their attributes and their respective priorities.
  • Does it produce the desired outcomes for society - Prosperity and Freedom
  • Can it endure as a body of thought?
  • Is it comprehensive enough to scale across the masses of people?
Those who point to their "base hits" as evidence of their advancement and superiority of their position are often mistaking these incremental movements as they are still under the tutelage of the system that they stand against as proof of their ability to govern a society once the balance is tipped.

The Use Of Societal Inducement

John McWhorter: Decades From Now Opposition To Gay Marriage Will Seem Bigoted

You probably do not have the Flash Player (Get Adobe Flash Player Here) installed for your browser or the video files are misplaced on your server!

The notion of deducing "correctness" of a principle based on the popular sentiment around it is flawed. As the video shows the intent is for the force of challenge to take control over the societal vernacular on the subject and shame those who do not follow. Mr McWhorter never bothers to establish the baseline of "functionality" of such a change. Too often the notion of RIGHTS are used as the justification. Those who don't know the proper dimensions of our society and the collective goals that the society desires to meet and them draw out the steps by which this attainment is "operationalized" will find themselves being lulled into the "right-ification" of things that our society would have never though of accepting in the past. Now they accept it under the meme of "progressivism".

It is as true to say: "60 years ago a young girl having a child out of wedlock was frowed upon by the society.  In Black and White communities alike she would 'go away' to an auntie's house, have the child and then return as the extended family looked after the child.  TODAY unwed pregnancy is not "frowned upon".   Pointing out CHANGES in acceptance without connecting it to some broader societial goal and then proving that our condition has improved because of it ushers in the notion of 'Progressivism for Progressive sake".   As such once you render an argument into "civil rights" - those who stand opposed are seen as bigots.
There is a massive amount of DISCONNECT in our present society.  Those who proclaim themselves to be "Intellectuals" know how to use their intellectual gifts to slice and dice any TRANSACTIONAL situation, putting enough pressure on their special interest to allow any particular point of discrimination to buckle.   These same people are also among the worst violators of the grand social order that is necessary for them to achieve the vaulted "social justice" that they aspire for.

The pre- and post-Father's Day talk shows that I listened to on the local Black talk radio shows took the cover off of the great amount of pain that exists between the father and every other element of his (would be) family.   The main weakness of those who seek base hits in the name of "Progressivism" is that their tool is incompetent in its ability to address the large gaping wound through which so much of our community's sting and "blood loss" is attributed to.

I do not argue that certain societal choices in and of themselves are going to cause this society to "blow up" as 'God' shoots fire from the sky.   I do believe that society will be forced to rebalance itself once those forces that had been thought of as oppressive are now needed to restore the net forward motion that has been lost due to the lateral friction of those who now promote hedonism.

For so long they have "struggled" AGAINST the system of power that they have failed to prepare themselves to be "the power" when the balance tips and what was once radical is now the reference standard.

One should be on the lookout for those who base their arguments not on the functional benefit and evidence of precedence but instead on catch all phrases such as "individual RIGHTS" and/or "Social Justice".   Ironically their forward motion is an assault upon the very ORDER that insures one's individual rights and the agreement that allows someone acting with interests beyond his own to "share" with others.

What we see is a perceived increase in "individual rights" while a strengthening of GOVERNMENT power to provide the protections that the previous loosening of cultural confinements had exposed the individual to.  As the first video shows - we merely have a situation where the state is now the 'relgious order'.  As the investment in the individual is threatened (ie: higher health care costs due to reckless behavior then it is the state, having subsumed the role of religion that bans this behavior - thus saving itself money).

No comments: