Sunday, September 02, 2012

Empire's Values

"Hypocrisy," wrote the great French writer Francois de La Rochefoucauld, "is the homage vice pays to virtue."

Today, vice is what passes for virtue, and hypocrisy seems to have become the principal value of the Atlantic Empire and its satellites.

It's bad enough that the Empire has internalized the belief that killing people is somehow "saving" them, due to the miraculous transubstantiation of anyone killed by Imperial ordnance into an "enemy combatant." But when a country that routinely invades others, overthrows governments by force or subterfuge, and sponsors terrorists (e.g. Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, KLA, Libyan and Syrian "freedom fighters) is setting up a committee for "atrocity prevention," what is one to conclude other than that it has left logic a few exits back?

The "Pussy Riot" tempest in a teacup is a perfect example of hypocrisy that simply rampages throughout every layer of society in the Empire. Sure, the desecration visited upon an Orthodox temple by the three orgy-loving "activists" pales in comparison to the oeuvre  of those paragons of tolerance and freedom in Kosovistan (under NATO's loving gaze no less). But don't you see, that just shows how oppressive Russian autocracy truly is! In a truly free, democratic society, all the churches would be razed and evil Orthodoxy abolished - or so reason the Marxists.

Wait a second, isn't America supposed to have fought the "long, twilight struggle" against Marxism and Leninism for forty-odd years? And didn't the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abolition of Communism usher in the End of History? Well, sure - but that's beside the point, since we're all Marxists now.

Let me explain. Karl Marx argued that life had been better in "noble savage" times without private property. Sure, people lived in caves, had but rudimentary tools, starved more often than not and died of old age at thirty - but they were just! Because his vision of an egalitarian world ran up against the notion of objective truth or virtue - something valued not only by Christian and Jewish philosophers but the Greeks and Romans before them - Marx railed about religion being the "opiate of the masses" and posited the existence of "communist truth", i.e. whatever was useful to the communist cause. Half a century later, his disciple Vladimir Ilyich Ulanov (better known as "Lenin") distilled this to a simple dichotomy: "Who-Whom".

While Marxism-Leninism was officially retired about two decades ago, cultural Marxism remained alive and well. And at its foundation is the relativistic logic proposed by Marx and championed by Lenin: it doesn't matter what is done, but who does it to whom. When "we" do something, that is by definition good, and when those Other People do the same thing - or even something considered virtuous under the wretched old "normative" logic  - it is by definition evil. Isn't it wonderful to have a moral compass that always points exactly where one wants it to?

Imagine the existence of an "activist group" funded by a foreign government, with a lewd name rendered only in a foreign language (e.g. Пизда Бунт), specializing in public acts of indecent exposure they call performance art, and therefore protected free speech. Imagine them barging into the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. Or wold it have to be a mosque? Or maybe an abortion clinic? One never knows what's actually considered sacred by the Imperial establishment these days. In any case, do you honestly think those very same media that cried crocodile tears over the fate of "Pussy Riot" wouldn't be leading the lynch mob, torches and rope in hand, in this instance?

Or do you think they'd sing them praises as brave pioneers of tolerance, diversity and freedom of expression - as they've done with "Pussy Riot"?

The answer to that question pretty much determines whether you're a cultural Marxist - i.e. believe in that relativistic pseudo-logic of who/whom - or not.

Now, standing up for the downtrodden workers exploited by the Industrial Revolution's robber barons is a good thing. But the bright shining future Marx envisioned for them involved caves. They were concrete instead of stone, but that's hardly the point. The equality he envisioned turned into a coerced equality of misery for most, and a life of plenty for a few. How exactly was that a good thing? I've lived in a Marxist society, and I've seen how quickly and easily it morphed  into the worst version of pagan nihilism. When you make people believe they are no better than animals, don't be surprised when they bite.

To be fair, cultural Marxism is no more an American value than original Marxism was a Russian value. Both were imposed on their host nations, if by different means. And it isn't just a thing of the "left" (democrats, reformers, progressives, whatever), either. The "right" is hardly different, amounting to at best a caricature opposition. They say they are defending tradition, but are no longer capable of articulating what that tradition is, much less why it's worth fighting for. (See the just-finished RNC convention in Tampa for a host of examples). To a 1950s liberal, a typical "conservative" of today would seem to the left of Stalin.

Besides, targets of Imperial "do-gooderism" worldwide certainly don't care whether their murderers wear ties or tie-dyes. Dead is dead.

Whatever you want to call the ideology currently dominating the West (Transnational Progressivism, Globalism, One-Worldism, Secular Humanism, etc.), its basic philosophy is Marxist and neo-pagan. It loathes tradition, family and kinship, property and commerce. It extols coercion, violence, welfare and conflict. And it disguises itself with pleasant-sounding words whose meaning has either been reversed or eliminated entirely: equality, democracy, freedom, diversity.

Not content with dismantling their own countries in this manner, the followers of this ideology  desire to remake the world as well. In that, they are aided by veritable cults of fanatical followers,  drawn by promises of riches and power but find fulfillment only in the feeling of smug self-righteousness: the "human rights activists" and "NGOs" (funded by foreign governments, ironically), professional revolutionaries and their spear-carriers, useful idiots and true believers.

They target Christianity and Judaism, though for the time being they seem to have a love affair with Islam. It isn't a cozy relationship; both the riots in Europe and the bloodbaths in Iraq and Afghanistan offer object lessons in what happens when Islam and cultural Marxism mix. Not surprisingly, the cultural Marxists refuse to acknowledge the problem exists, since that would clash  with their narrative.

Fight back, and the mainstream media - as well as the twitterati and blogger brigades serving the Cult of Death - declare you uncivilized, primitive, retrograde, repressive. Pure projection, all of it - for it is they who desire to abolish civilization, extol force as the arbiter of all, wish to reverse the history of humanity and repress anyone who dissents. Much as they loathe the naive evangelicals who believe their actions can bring about the Rapture, the secular cult is exactly like them, in that they seek to "immanentize the Eschaton", bringing about the End of History by obliterating all competing thought.

Their ultimate objective is not universal happiness. Nor is it diversity, equality, freedom, democracy or justice. Those are but flowery phrases that are mere means to an end. And that end is "all the kingdoms of this world, and the glory of them." This is why they hate Christianity, for its unequivocal rejection of that offer. And why they attack Orthodoxy in particular: because, unlike most other branches of Christianity, it still persists in upholding that rejection.


Suvorov said...

It is true that in the West this kind of trial would not take place simply because it would never come to that. They would have been jailed long ago- whether for kissing a female policeman in the lips, or climbing on top of a public vehicle to shout obscenities, or for holding an orgy in a museum. On the other hand, it's a shame that the Russian court's decision deprived us of the opportunity to examine the sincerity of Madonna's and Sir Paul's commitment to freedom of speech. Would they be strong enough advocates of civil liberties to allow their performances to be interrupted by the kind of "presentation" witnessed by Russian churchgoers?

The Hero of Crappy Town said...

"Or wold it have to be a mosque? Or maybe an abortion clinic? One never knows what's actually considered sacred by the Imperial establishment these days."

That's easy. It would have to be a Gay Pride event. Imagine hooligans crashing a Gay Pride manifestation, but one that was being held, not in the streets, but in a dome or hall they rented and paid for the use of and you have your equivalency.

The headlines in such a case would proclaim something like: 'Russian barbarians still have a way to go — right-wing extremists go on rampage, disrupt private LGBT event, courts sentence them to just 2 years!'

CrnaGora-Srpska Sparta said...

I've been waiting forever for someone to come out and state these obvious truths.

I'm not a fanatic of any kind, but what the ruling elites of this world are implementing and doing is pure paganism and evil.

Christianity has been dismantled in the West, and now they are trying to impose their system of values (cultural marxism and paganism) on ex-communist countries that have reaffirmed their nationhood and Christian roots.

Homosexuality is definitely the holiest of holy values in Western civilization. Anyone who questions its moral integrity is labeled a bigot and maniac. As a heterosexual, I find homosexuality repulsive, just as I find pedophilia disgusting. I also think that sex with donkeys is disgusting. To each their own, I guess!

I could personally care less about homosexuality, what gay people do in their bedrooms is their own business. What practitioners of bestiality do in their barns is also their private matter. I am however opposed to the wholesale promotion of homosexuality as being virtuous and something that the rest of us should envy.

Homosexuality is a psychological disorder (despite the revised definition given by the APA, which obviously has an agenda), but also immoral in Christianity. It's nice that the West has found a new belief system, but they should at least respect the faith of their parents and grandparents, to the extent that they don't have to ridicule Christians and Christianity as being the most repulsive belief system on planet earth.

Unknown said...

The reason that the West promotes homosexuality and hates Christianity is that the West hates itself and wants self destruction. The further it descends into cultural Marxism and paganism the more it is discontent with itself. It is a negative feedback loop. The West is on its death march.

White Eagle Fencing Club Bristol said...

The author doesn't seem to understand paganism: It certainly wasn't and isn't laissez faire. The true moral degradation is the marketisation of value; a distortion of the true role of freedom of choice in society. Christianity, with its long and bloody obsession with definitions of the Divine and the correct ritual of appeasing Him, has no right to take unto itself, as its own, the goodness of which Socrates spoke and existed and continues to exist among people unblinded by regard for shibboleths and fetishes. The hypocrisy of today's venial elites should not lead us back into the shackles of priests and witch doctors. As for the linking of so-called Welfare with a failure of Christian values: one of the few redeeming features of the Christian mission was the stress on Charity. It's a pity to see the creed of forgiveness equated with a mean "from each according to his labour" calculus.

CubuCoko said...

You are correct in that I don't "understand" paganism. Partly because true paganism has been extinct for centuries, and today's manifestations are mostly post- and anti-Christianity. But also because those manifestations make zero sense to me.
What values they claim to preach are mostly cherry-picked from Christianity they openly loathe. Socrates and his disciples worked hard to define piety, virtue, good and ill. Post-Christians believe in "niceness" to those who think like them, and are vicious to those that do not. Pure moral relativism, hypocrisy elevated to virtue.

robert49rml said...

I am a Buddhist. Jesus said to treat others as you would have others treat you. Buddha taught the Law of Cause and Effect. If you treat others badly then eventually the same will happen to you. This is certainly where Christianity and Buddhism meet. The West is destroying all that is good in the world and replacing it with Marxism on steroids. Thank you Mr Malic for this article.