In the mouth of madness

I have no desire to argue to case of immigration restriction/ allowance. The entire argument is worthless, there is no discussion to be had, there is no sanity. The only way sense and sanity will be brought to bear is with a complete overhaul of governance and securing of power, anything else is wasted breath.

A superb example of this raving insanity which passes for legitimate thought in 21st century Democracy is provided by this blog post.

From the get go, appeals to irrelevancies and the presentation of unconnected and context-less arguments are put forward with a self evidentness which is only comprehensible within the Liberal tradition. So when the author mentions Jews and the Holocaust, it is understood that this is a moral stain on the USA, and a historical crime which must be salved with complete destruction of society, quite why has never been clear to me, but then again nothing in the Liberal tradition occurs, or succeeds, by anything approaching rational discourse. The author then describes the potential positive immigration bursts which will occur due to “dramatic economic booms, the emergence of new cultural meccas, or religious quests to establish new Jerusalems, such as brought the Puritans to North America and the Mormons to Utah.” Again, the key is to talk about things without any context and assume the reader understands the self evidentness of the statements because they are also immersed in the Liberal traditions, sorry, scratch that – because they are rational individuals who have seen reality, as Liberalism is not a tradition amongst others, but an enlightenment into the reality of the universe

The real fireworks however, start when the author explains his reasoning behind his support for open borders, at which point this he might as well have just posted this scene from the movie ‘Event Horizon.’

The rule of thumb when anyone starts talking about ethics, an area of grave importance for the creation and functioning of a society, is to immediately cite Nazis as they have formed an other against which the ethics of liberalism are compared. It’s rank idiocy of a scale that is hard to put into words and reduces the history of the 21st century position of a childish fairytale, but when your tradition is so utterly insane, and it’s ethics system which claimed to be able to replace that of the medieval Chrisitan systems cannot even explain itself in a coherent manner, then doing something as squalid and stupid as merely setting a cartoonish bogey man as a means to differentiate your conception is not suprising.

Matters get even worse when you get to such statements as “the key is to cling stubbornly to one’s humanity and the dictates of conscience, and refuse to commit crimes, no matter how vividly society makes you believe in the horrors that will come from not committing them, and no matter how propaganda stirs your passions to make you want to commit them” the assumption here, as is always the assumption with anyone of the Liberal tradition, is that humans are capable of understanding a natural right and wrong which is obvious without any training or learning. There is always a complete renunciation of the idea that the context of the action is in any way significant. To the authors (small) credit, he does at least acknowledge the problem, then quickly provides a bizarre example involving torturing a child to save a city, which is then dismissed as not being relevant to everyday usage. The rational failure of deontological ethics is just skirted over, and it has to be asked why? Why is it allowed to fester and continually be put forward by Liberals? The answer is because no one is in charge and able to take these failures into account, so everyone just…kind of…ignores them.  It is no surprise that such a system could lead to individuals that could make such insane statements as:

“I hope readers will find the prospect of a billion immigrants not too unpleasant, and that it will encourage people to do the right thing, but if the prospect is frightening, still we must stop deporting people, and prepare ourselves for the consequences.”

Having reasoned with premises which are lacking in any coherent rationality, he then reaches a conclusion which amounts to destruction of functioning society, but of course, given he is a Liberal, this is not seen as destruction, as society will just continual to exist with each individual operating on a “do no harm” deontological ethics.

Not content with merely ripping out his own own eyeballs and smearing feces on the walls of his cell, the author then proceeds to start banging his bloodied head on the floor with the merging of deontology and utilitarianism. The idea that ethics can be organized quo the universal good of mankind is one of those concepts which has been savaged to death over and over, but again has remained and flourished – why? Again, no one is in charge of Liberalism so stupid shit like this remains instead of being a footnote in history which people can laugh at as being utterly mental.

The real kicker in the authors post, and what really shows he has zero idea what he is talking about (and hence is an excellent Liberal) is when he refers to virtue ethics. He has just gone from Liberal ethical systems built atop Cartesian idiocy in which the individual can understand right and wrong as being universals that are an issue for individuals qua individuals, to then referring to virtue ethics which are based on learning, character and right and wrong in relation to individuals qua individuals and qua society and qua teleology. This form of ethics demands a society which is formed and  organized (hint – it is not amicable to open borders.) But as with all Liberals, all other traditions are really just Liberalism at base, and cannot constitute anything radically different because Liberalism and the Liberal individual is just objective fact, and everything else is just superfluous value which can and will be shed on the path to enlightenment.

The rest of the post is just incoherent pronouncements that have zero sense, but are punctuated by strong ethical statements based on what appears to be sentiment, and/or fad and fashion. There really is no arguing with Liberalism, it merely has to be removed.

Advertisements