Below is a set of quotes by an avowed leftist and one of my personal heroes, Douglas Adams. Douglas was not just an author of brilliant science fiction (he wrote the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy among other wonderful books). He was a thinker of the purest kind with a mind so rational that many people simply cannot deal with the simple honest logic of many things he said and wrote.
In the modern age of hyper-liberalism we find that certain ideas have been made, for lack of a better term, holy to the left and these ideas have been made unassailble completely arbitrarily and without any rational thought. The quotes below are in respect of Douglas’s ideas around the discussions of religion but if you change every instance of “God” below to “politics” you see that the two share many properties but where they depart from each other is in the most caustic components.
Religion itself is an entirely personal matter which people choose to invest themselves in or not and it affects only their life (with certain exceptions of people taking things entirely too far where religion becomes politics such as with Wahabist Islam) but not so with politics. Politics has to do in its core with the imposition of the will of the individual onto the masses where religion is the imposition of the will of a single (supernatural) entity on the individual.
Those that know me at all know that in matters of religion I am not a participant though I tend to adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethic and I subscribe broadly if not completely to the teachings of Jesus. My personal “beliefs” are just that, my personal beliefs. I do not impose them on anyone else and I do not allow others to impose theirs on me. When I visit a Christian household I find not friction because I am largely indistinguishable from a Christian in my understanding of morality. When I visit a Hindu house one can see very quickly that I am an outsider but a tolerable one. However, if I were to visit a Wahabi Muslim home I would probably be asked to leave in pretty short order if not be physically attacked.
I hold some religions as poisonous on the face of things. I hold some religions as simply silly. I hold still others in fairly high esteem even if I don’t “believe” in them. This is the same as my opinions on politics. I consider modern liberalism; which is to do with leftist policies rather than classical liberalism which has to do with personal autonomy, to be a poisonous and treacherous creed which advocates what can be boiled down to a lack of personal autonomy, preferential treatment of select groups, censorship of speech and the redistribution of wealth as positively corrosive of a common public life and I consider it a mental disorder of the most serious kind. I consider centrism to be a wishy-washy middle ground held by those without the personal intellectual courage to maintain a firm position which occasionally requires one to say that the actions of another are good or bad and to treat them as such. Evil ideas should be treated as evil ideas and stupid ideas should be similarly dealt with.
As you read the following quotes, do not be distracted by the fact that they’re about religion and instead think in terms of intellectual and factual honesty and semantics (literally “the meaning of words”). The modern left has created a state of affairs with respect to how people communicate which has many fences and barriers artificially erected specifically in order to prevent any kind of rational debate and that very fact tells you that the ideas that they’re trying to defend are completely irrational and would be deservedly ridiculed into oblivion if leftists hadn’t ring-fenced them off from rational debate. This kind of intellectual totalitarianism is antithetical to the notion of individual freedom and is positively destructive of human relationships and the public discourse.
Behold the wisdom:
“I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” — then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof … I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.”
And then there’s the following:
“It’s rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that’s grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise – that’s a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is. In the case of an idea, if we think, “Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity,” what does it mean? Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe begun, about who created the universe, no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being, and once that loop gets going, it’s very, very powerful. So we are used to not challenging religious ideas, but it’s very interesting how much of a furor Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.”
When someone tells me that I can’t say someone is retarded then I know that they’re working with emotion rather than intellect and disregard their opinion entirely. Retarded means “slowed down” and some people are mentally retarded. When I say that politically correct speech is nothing but totalitarian fuckery of the highest order I mean it. Who is anyone to tell me how to communicate with someone else in my native language. As long as one defines the terms they use and then sticks to those definitions there can be nothing wrong with them expressing ideas which may or may not be objectionable to anyone else and it’s possible to debate the topic at hand vigorously and it’s ok at the end of that debate to come to the conclusion that one of the contradictory points of view is utterly stupid or simply wrong.
Socialism is evil on the face of it. It is nothing but the morality of a thief and the dictatorial mindset of a tyrant. The first step to tyranny is to make it so that ideas are not open to rational debate. The second step is to convince people that once you’ve closed off an avenue of discussion it’s now ok to punish individuals for the perceived crimes of some plural group to which they belong. The third step is the destruction of that plural group.
I say, “No!” to that kind of idiocy. If you’re a liberal who thinks it’s ok to tell me how I can speak or even perceive the world around me then you’re a tyrant. If you expect that I’m going to just cede my personal autonomy to you and operate in the way you tell me just because you told me to, then your a damned idiot. If you’re a liberal that operates your own life in the way that you’d like others to but doesn’t let it get any farther than that then you’re not a tyrant however it’s possible that you’re still a damned idiot though not definitely the case.
Conservative beliefs are just that, conservative. That means that there is a desire to conserve the culture and to slow down any change in that culture so as to not shock the system as shocks induce chaos in societies. No conservative I know has ever said that a person’s livelihood should be taken from them because they used a word that was not liked by the conservative. Almost every liberal I’ve ever met has thought the opposite and, despite their protestations to the contrary, all you have to do to demonstrate that is to ask them a few indelicately phrased questions.
Choose your words carefully and stick to whatever definition you assign those words. Don’t let anyone tell you what you can and cannot think but don’t be so fucking arrogant to think that your privately held notions should not be subject to critical review by you yourself and if you find in your review that some idea you hold is stupid or evil or just plain wrong, modify your mindset accordingly.
One of the people I admire the most is a man I call KVK. He holds his principles extremely tightly and consistently based on his assigned definitions to the words he uses to describe his positions and he lives his life very strictly by his principles as described by these tightly defined words and principles of behavior. He does not impose his will on the world around him but if the world around him wants to be part of his life then that world has to adhere to his principles. That’s the foundation of culture.
Some people will recoil at the notion that culture matters and some cultures are simply incompatible. Those people are afraid of being called a bigot or racist or whatever but they ignore the fact that there is nothing wrong with disliking another culture. Rather the ability to dislike or to like another culture is the purest expression of having a defined culture of your own. I dislike many cultures. I find many of them to be abhorrent and so I do not play within them. I find many other cultures to be partially objectionable but tolerable and I tolerate those and occasionally play within them. There is nothing immoral about that. I’m simply adhering to my own principles in a principled way, like you’re supposed to.
I find it extremely fortunate that KVK and I, while we have many notions that are mutually incompatible, have enough cultural similarity between us that we can really enjoy each other’s company and exchange ideas and educate each other. We can even occasionally cause one another to rethink a long held position and neither of us is aggrieved by that when it happens. Our cultures are different but they are compatible. I know some other people who I cannot really spend time with because they insist on punishing me for my culture. I would be happy to spend time with them if that were not the case but their culture causes their behavior to be unacceptable to me and so I stick to my principles of accepting them for what they are and keeping them at arms length because of what they are.
This attitude of mine is definable as separatism and in this respect I’m a separatist. I believe that incompatible cultures should not mix because it only leads to terrible things. Anyone who at this point associates culture with race should hit themselves in the head with a tack hammer as you’ve completely missed the point as the man said, the matter does not call for even handedness at all.
What it all comes down to is a simple dividing line. Some people are so personally invested in their own notions that they feel they have to destroy any competing notions along with the people that hold them because they feel that when you attack their idiotic ideas that you’re attacking them personally. More sensible people know that when someone attacks your idiotic idea that they’re ONLY attacking the idea and that it’s nothing personal.
Decide which side you’re on. If you’ve even read this far then I can safely make some assumptions about which side that is.