Politics and Morality

[Valkenar]

Panther originally posted the following in
<a href="http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.p ... 3">this</a> thread.

These quotes are in order, but not neccesarily contiguous. I've used elipses to indictate breaks in the narrative. If I've messed it up somehow, it's because I'm incompetant, rather than malicious.

Therein lies the paradoxical fact that those who curse the Constitutional Republican society which treats them nicely and allows them free horizons (the very freedom to exercise their "subjective morality" within the boundaries of the law), are causing the disruption of former religion-based morality leading to the ultimate replacement of this society with one that is totalitarian and which oppresses and enslaves men. This paradox can only be understood under the assumption that those who espouse "subjective morality" have been manipulated by the Statist's subversive propaganda machines.

...

In fact, V.I. Lenin referred to those manipulated in such a fashion, on all levels, as " useful idiots ".

...

Interestingly enough, there are those that are currently pushing a "new world religion" and this is backed-up in the UN. Complete with all the ritual and trappings of a major religion , but with common moral values passed down over generations replaced with a system of moral values that teaches the superiority of the State through the "religion" of ecology (A belief system partially plagarized from certain Native American religious moral values and twisted to suit the desired results of an elite few).

...

Prior to the "revolutionary" days of the 60's, it was considered bad moral conduct to have indescriminate sexual relations, shirk one's responsibilities to country and society, act out in violent ways without provocation, contradict most of history with a belief in pure anarchy, and waste hours upon hours of time with drugs while expecting others to supply the needs of your existense. The destruction of those set moral values, in a great part, can be traced directly to the desire to destroy our morality-based society so that it may be replaced with a different society. Espousing the beliefs that such cultural and moral subversion are acceptable was (as previously posted from Castro) part of the revolutionary plans of the Communist/Socialist totalitarians who wished to replace our Constitutional Republican society with their totalitarian society. It seems self-evident that over the last three to four decades, those "subjective moral beliefs" have started to become the norm for a significant number amoung us. ( By the way, people who want to "conserve" the best that mankind has produced and handed down to us over the millennia are generally referred to as conservatives. While those that would try to sever the People from their rightful inheritance of the wisdom of the ages are the polar opposite of conservatives... and are politely known as "free-thinking liberals". )

...

Those who espouse subjective morality do believe that their ethics apply to others... As does the modern Liberal movement. The difference is that those who use subjective morality ( a code of moral conduct that is based on their own personal, convenient views ), generally contradict the handed-down for generations morality.

[Panther]

Perhaps the order of the comments is off... idunno...

Regardless... I wrote it and I'll stick by it until someone gives me evidence to believe otherwise.

[Valkenar]

... the disruption of former religion-based morality leading to the ultimate replacement of this society with one that is totalitarian and which oppresses and enslaves men.

Throughout history there have been many totalitarian governments founded by people who (purportedly) follow a religion-based morality. Governments that are themselves based on those ideas have been some of the worst.

If the idea is that any decay in morality will be reflected in politics, then why would a form of morality that seems to be less rigid form a totalitarian government rather than an anarchistic one? Not that either are desirable, but that it seems counter-intuitive.

This paradox can only be understood under the assumption that those who espouse "subjective morality" have been manipulated by the Statist's subversive propaganda machines.

Are you referring to a vast left-wing conspiracy? It seems to me that everyone has their own propaganda machine and is doing the best to spread their ideas. This isn't unique to the left or right.

In fact, V.I. Lenin referred to those manipulated in such a fashion, on all

Interestingly enough, there are those that are currently pushing a "new world religion" and this is backed-up in the UN.

I take it you're referring to the Earth Charter? I'm not too familiar with this, but I can't think of what else you might be hinting at.

Complete with all the ritual and trappings of a major religion , but with common moral values passed down over generations replaced with a system of moral values that teaches the superiority of the State through the "religion" of ecology (A belief system partially plagarized from certain Native American religious moral values and twisted to suit the desired results of an elite few).

Like I said, I don't know much about the Earth Chart (just what I found online when I tried to figure out what you were referring to). But it seems to me that moral values passed down over generations is almost exactly where they're taking their ideas. Unless I grossly misread, what they did is go around to many different cultures and take their ideas on morality, then formulated into what they now have.

Out of curiosity, if you did believe a serious threat to the environment existed, that endangered Americans along with everyone else, what would you consider a reasonable approach to this problem?

Prior to the "revolutionary" days of the 60's, it was considered bad moral conduct to have indescriminate sexual relations, shirk one's responsibilities to country and society, act out in violent ways without provocation, contradict most of history with a belief in pure anarchy, and waste hours upon hours of time with drugs while expecting others to supply the needs of your existense.

I don't think any of those things you mention are particularly respected these days either. Certainly sexual morays are relaxed, and some forms of drug use are more acceptable, but I really think you're overstating the case. Unprovoked violence? Look at labor struggles, or suffrage. Violent protest isn't anything new.

It's still considered bad to shirk responsibilites to country and society, but what's changed is what those responsibilities are understood to be. Is it a social responsibility to support a war you believe is morally wrong? If the US decided to arbitrarily anex Mexico, would you feel compelled to support that action?

The destruction of those set moral values, in a great part, can be traced directly to the desire to destroy our morality-based society so that it may be replaced with a different society. Espousing the beliefs that such cultural and moral subversion are acceptable was (as previously posted from Castro) part of the revolutionary plans of the Communist/Socialist totalitarians who wished to replace our Constitutional Republican society with their totalitarian society.

If communists and socialists are really the cause of what you're talking about, then you must have some idea how it was accomplished? If you want to recommend a book here I'll read it, since "how the west was corrupted" is a pretty extensive story, if it's really true. I have no problem believing that the likes of Marx et al have expressed a desire to undermine our moral systems in order to topple our political structure. But undermining a moral system seems like a general purpose tool for political change, rather than one specifically well-suited for totalitarianism.

By the way, people who want to "conserve" the best that mankind has produced and handed down to us over the millennia are generally referred to as conservatives. While those that would try to sever the People from their rightful inheritance of the wisdom of the ages are the polar opposite of conservatives... and are politely known as "free-thinking liberals". )

I have no trouble believing that liberalism often coincides with new age religion, what I don't believe is that it is inextricably linked. Liberal issues like environmentalism, civil rights and so forth aren't specifically anti-christian or anti-tradition. The only sense it's anti-tradition is that it recognizes that problems exist and should be solved, rather than be ignored.

Those who espouse subjective morality do believe that their ethics apply to others... As does the modern Liberal movement. The difference is that those who use subjective morality ( a code of moral conduct that is based on their own personal, convenient views ), generally contradict the handed-down for generations morality.

What of the handed-down morality is really opposed? It seems to me they're 98% the same. Further, you say that subjective morality is convenient, I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Convenient is a morality that says "you're poor because you deserve it" which is essentially what a lot of people believe, who truly think that our society offers equal opportunity for success. This allows them to ignore the plight of others, which is far more convenient than having to care about it.

[Panther]

For now,

My point about the politics of "subjective morality" relates directly to my point about children needing to be taught morality in without considering any grey areas and mastering those concepts (IOW, internalizing those external rules), and growing as a human being (maturing) before they can understand the intricacies of any grey area concepts. My point in the politics of "subjective morality" being that those who would live their lives and beliefs by picking and choosing what they want to follow of those passed-down-for-generations moral codes (based in no small part on what is convenient or desireable to them at the time, rather than follow a moral code of conduct which would require them to forego their desire and personal gratification) is disruptive to the societal make-up of the world. Those "free thinking, revolutionary" types often do not even realize the disruptive result of their actions, why people whose controle they would normally not want to live under benefit, or what will happen if they are successful in the completion of their disruption.