We shall not tolerate intolerance!
"...the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that preceeded it in the world...the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd...(it) reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is a shepherd."
Almost 200 years ago, French Aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville wrote these lines in the closing chapters of his seminal Democracy in America. It's amazing how accurate some of his predictions were. Tocqueville prophesied that majority opinion would one day provide a substitute for moral clarity, and indeed it has. There's no greater sin in the modern political arena than "extremism." Of course, one must wonder what "extremism" is.
Naturally, everyone can point fingers at "extremists." Osama bin Laden is an extremist, as the survivalist militia types who blew up the Murrah building. At the same time, they darkly draw moral equivalence to other forms of "extremism," such as religious fidelity or "Jewish Extremism". We must be just as wary of Christian extremism as of Islamic extremism, they say. In fact, the war on terror isn't a battle against a specific ideology, but rather a war on extremes in general. Extremism is the key to violence, and once we wipe them out, there will be no more violence because everyone will agree!
To take the trite-and-true route, an extremist is someone who falls outside commonly accepted ideas on certain things. For example, it's generally not considered acceptable behaviour (outside the insanity of academia, but we have to stick the anti-semites somewhere where they'll do as little harm as possible) to ram truck bombs into US Marine Barracks for Allah. That's a fine and good definition, as terrorism doesn't square with natural law. The problem with this definition is that it is also extended to the realm of ideas. For example, it's considered equally uncouth to stick to an inflexible moral code. As we all know, at midnight on 1 Janurary 2000, everything that had been held true for the previous 2,500 years of Western Civilisation changed. The mere passage of an arbitrary chronoligical period launched us into the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY! All ethical codes, everlasting covenants, and social contracts expired on that date. So, apparently, did the need for moral philosophy. The majority opinion creates morality out of thin air, human nature be damned.
So, with a new moral philosophy in place, it's high time to correct the poor, deluded souls who still believe in unchanging mores. This is where the word "intolerance" is slung around. Those who apply their "out-dated" ideas to modern life are using their standards to judge the behaviour of others. As we all know, being "judgmental" is the opposite of being "tolerant". Those who engage in judging others must not be tolerated!
The end product of this is that people become the very same self-deluded sheep that Tocqueville correctly predicted. As the inestimable Dr. Phillips (from whom I've learned we don't want either perfect justice or more democracy) has pointed out, we end up with the "herd of independent thinkers." Though each one styles themself a clever chap with above-average intellect, when they are questioned closely about their moral schemas, one finds no deeper thought than a few commonly-held platitudes such as "don't judge a book by its cover" or (for people who aren't as trite and half-witted) "it's mean to impose your culture on someone else." The commonality of answers within this herd is shocking indeed.
It has been remarked that no uniformed army in history has achieved the regularity of dress that one can find in modern society. They aren't forced to dress this way, but they do it of their own accord. This is the truly frightening aspect of Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority: people will no longer desire difference. The fact that most people do something is a self-justifying statement. It's the bandwagon fallacy gone wild! Those dissatisfied with the norm merely join a smaller group that's the same way, and consider themselves quite rebellious! In addition, the lack of complete and loving acceptance from other groups gives them a nightmarish persecution complex. They obscenely compare their pitiful plight with that of the Jews under Hitler, and make this view known on innumerable fora (Typical Query:"Why does wearing pancake makeup make you different than those who tan themselves?" Typical Response: "FUK U HITLER NAZI!!!!1"). Of course, the fact that each of these specialty groups has a niche market catered to by most malls demonstrates that they are about as persecuted as an SS trooper who's a little too enthusiastic in his duties. That doesn't deter them from thinking that they're the vanguard of what's right and the soldiers who fight the evils of society, instead of the more-depressing reality of "wannabe-popular kids who dress funny."
What's there to do for those outside of the herd? Well, nothing really according to Tocqueville. Because the majority possesses power over all branches of government, they are necessarily bent to its will. You'll eventually tire of fighting this overwhelming force, and retreat to the sanctuary of individualsim, provided by your "four corners and a square hedge." Besides, further democratisation has been Ordained by God, so you'd better ensure that you have a good fence.
I've little to add to this, as I've yet to transcend the bounds of the herd. All I can suggest is that the majority gets its opinions from somewhere. Perhaps those who are sufficiently intelligent and have such an impressive reflective capacity can use their mastery over the herd to shape its views to something more sensible, perhaps in accord with natural law. The least your types could do is make those cursed midriff-baring outfits unfashionable. I'm tired of seeing distended stomachs which are smeared with spray-on tan poking through the conveniently-placed gap. Maybe burqas will catch on as a fashion trend, and spare us the constant carnival of droopy flesh. Insh'Allah.
Almost 200 years ago, French Aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville wrote these lines in the closing chapters of his seminal Democracy in America. It's amazing how accurate some of his predictions were. Tocqueville prophesied that majority opinion would one day provide a substitute for moral clarity, and indeed it has. There's no greater sin in the modern political arena than "extremism." Of course, one must wonder what "extremism" is.
Naturally, everyone can point fingers at "extremists." Osama bin Laden is an extremist, as the survivalist militia types who blew up the Murrah building. At the same time, they darkly draw moral equivalence to other forms of "extremism," such as religious fidelity or "Jewish Extremism". We must be just as wary of Christian extremism as of Islamic extremism, they say. In fact, the war on terror isn't a battle against a specific ideology, but rather a war on extremes in general. Extremism is the key to violence, and once we wipe them out, there will be no more violence because everyone will agree!
To take the trite-and-true route, an extremist is someone who falls outside commonly accepted ideas on certain things. For example, it's generally not considered acceptable behaviour (outside the insanity of academia, but we have to stick the anti-semites somewhere where they'll do as little harm as possible) to ram truck bombs into US Marine Barracks for Allah. That's a fine and good definition, as terrorism doesn't square with natural law. The problem with this definition is that it is also extended to the realm of ideas. For example, it's considered equally uncouth to stick to an inflexible moral code. As we all know, at midnight on 1 Janurary 2000, everything that had been held true for the previous 2,500 years of Western Civilisation changed. The mere passage of an arbitrary chronoligical period launched us into the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY! All ethical codes, everlasting covenants, and social contracts expired on that date. So, apparently, did the need for moral philosophy. The majority opinion creates morality out of thin air, human nature be damned.
So, with a new moral philosophy in place, it's high time to correct the poor, deluded souls who still believe in unchanging mores. This is where the word "intolerance" is slung around. Those who apply their "out-dated" ideas to modern life are using their standards to judge the behaviour of others. As we all know, being "judgmental" is the opposite of being "tolerant". Those who engage in judging others must not be tolerated!
The end product of this is that people become the very same self-deluded sheep that Tocqueville correctly predicted. As the inestimable Dr. Phillips (from whom I've learned we don't want either perfect justice or more democracy) has pointed out, we end up with the "herd of independent thinkers." Though each one styles themself a clever chap with above-average intellect, when they are questioned closely about their moral schemas, one finds no deeper thought than a few commonly-held platitudes such as "don't judge a book by its cover" or (for people who aren't as trite and half-witted) "it's mean to impose your culture on someone else." The commonality of answers within this herd is shocking indeed.
It has been remarked that no uniformed army in history has achieved the regularity of dress that one can find in modern society. They aren't forced to dress this way, but they do it of their own accord. This is the truly frightening aspect of Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority: people will no longer desire difference. The fact that most people do something is a self-justifying statement. It's the bandwagon fallacy gone wild! Those dissatisfied with the norm merely join a smaller group that's the same way, and consider themselves quite rebellious! In addition, the lack of complete and loving acceptance from other groups gives them a nightmarish persecution complex. They obscenely compare their pitiful plight with that of the Jews under Hitler, and make this view known on innumerable fora (Typical Query:"Why does wearing pancake makeup make you different than those who tan themselves?" Typical Response: "FUK U HITLER NAZI!!!!1"). Of course, the fact that each of these specialty groups has a niche market catered to by most malls demonstrates that they are about as persecuted as an SS trooper who's a little too enthusiastic in his duties. That doesn't deter them from thinking that they're the vanguard of what's right and the soldiers who fight the evils of society, instead of the more-depressing reality of "wannabe-popular kids who dress funny."
What's there to do for those outside of the herd? Well, nothing really according to Tocqueville. Because the majority possesses power over all branches of government, they are necessarily bent to its will. You'll eventually tire of fighting this overwhelming force, and retreat to the sanctuary of individualsim, provided by your "four corners and a square hedge." Besides, further democratisation has been Ordained by God, so you'd better ensure that you have a good fence.
I've little to add to this, as I've yet to transcend the bounds of the herd. All I can suggest is that the majority gets its opinions from somewhere. Perhaps those who are sufficiently intelligent and have such an impressive reflective capacity can use their mastery over the herd to shape its views to something more sensible, perhaps in accord with natural law. The least your types could do is make those cursed midriff-baring outfits unfashionable. I'm tired of seeing distended stomachs which are smeared with spray-on tan poking through the conveniently-placed gap. Maybe burqas will catch on as a fashion trend, and spare us the constant carnival of droopy flesh. Insh'Allah.
posted by The Admiral at 2:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home