Anti-corporate Protests in US

Posted by Anti Citizen One on October 6th, 2011

… strangely under reported or belittled by the (corporate) media.

Capitalism on Trial (BBC)

Update: I keep ranting about how the Bible is actually anti-materialist, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist. Looks like the Vatican might have been thinking about that. Full story here, of course Catholic politicians are unlikely to listen… and again!

Interesting quote

Posted by on March 16th, 2011

She asked him why did he not write out his thoughts. For what, he asked her, with careful scorn. To compete with phrasemongers, incapable of thinking consecutively for sixty seconds? To submit himself to the criticisms of an obtuse middle class which entrusted its morality to policemen and its fine arts to impresarios?

Mr Duffy – A Painful Case – Dubliners – James Joyce

A Humanists view on the protest the Pope demonstrations

Posted by on September 22nd, 2010

Here follows an article by Brendan O’Neill, humanist journalist and editor of Spiked magazine. I have copied it in full.

“There was a delicious irony at the heart of the anti-pope demo in central London on Saturday: the protesters had clearly got so carried away with smugly expressing their intellectual superiority over the faithful hordes – ‘RELIGION IS STUPID’, said one particularly popular placard – that they forgot to proofread their own intellectual outpourings.
The spelling was atrocious. ‘Abstinance [sic] makes the church grow fondlers’, said one huge banner, held aloft by gays dressed as cardinals. ‘Science flies you to the moon – relgion [sic] flies you into buildings’, said another. A lone woman elicited cheers for waving a homemade placard that said ‘Fuck off back to the Spanish Inquisition in the fourteenth century’. Now, the f-word I don’t mind – but a Spanish Inquisition in the fourteenth century? If you’re going to bandy around the word ‘STUPID’ , then at least read a history book or two first, or get one of those bright kids from Are You Smarter Than A 10-Year-Old? to spellcheck your propaganda.
But we shouldn’t let the actual illiteracy of the demo blind us to the real problem with it: its moral illiteracy. Shrill, decadent, profoundly illiberal in sentiment, this protest confirmed what the pope has become for at-sea secularists: an Emmanuel Goldstein figure, who allows them to get their moralistic rocks off.

The phrase ‘motley crew’ could have been invented for this gathering of Protest the Pope activists. There was a generous smattering of ageing lesbian and gay activists, getting one last wear out of their radical-queer bishop and nuns outfits from the 1970s. There were refugees from the rump of the old left, mostly from the Extreme Social Inadequacy Tendency. And then there were the professional secularists and humanists, who took to the stage one by one to try to out-adjective each other in their expressions of fear and/or loathing for the pope.
What brought these disparate groups together was a fairly obvious need for something – anything – to get hot under the collar about. Now that homosexual lifestyles are publicly prized, the old queer rights lobby doesn’t have much to get angry about; so thank God for the pope’s visit, which allowed it to resurrect – for one night only! – its unique brand of political bitchiness. ‘The devil DOES wear Prada’, said one gay group’s placard, referring to Benedict’s red, possibly Prada shoes (and the fact that he’s the devil). The poor old left, in terminal decline for the past 20 years, leapt upon the pope’s visit to talk about global institutional corruption plus brainwashing and stuff. And for the New Atheist crowd, the arrival of Benedict – a man who actually believes in God! – is cast-iron confirmation that irrational religious belief is spreading like hellfire.
This was less a coherent protest against a real problem, and more a madcap attempt to transform the pontiff into a political pin cushion, into which every group desperately seeking a sliver of purpose could then stick their particular pin. So some were protesting against paedophilia, others against AIDS; some were concerned about Holocaust denial, others about homophobia, and others still about the undermining of human rights. And apparently the pope, taking over from money, is the root of all of these problems and of evil in general, being a wicked, Prada-wearing, Bush-meeting devil and all. Some even waved placards saying ‘STOP STONING’ and ‘Religion flies planes into buildings’, which, correct me if I’m wrong, are problems that are associated with the Islamic faith rather than the Catholic one. But who cares. Got a grievance? Pin it on the pope.
The whole thing had a whiff of voodoo about it, as the protesters sought to make the pontiff into a doll they could beat up. The sense of desperately needing something to get into a flap about was brilliantly summed up by a placard that simply said: ‘GENERAL DISAPPROVAL.’ This wasn’t radicalism as we have known it; it was a feeling in search of an outlet, a collection of lost causes looking for one more day in the political sun. A columnist for the New Statesman provided an unwitting insight into the feeling of unformed liberal fury that has opportunistically attached itself to the pope, when she argued: ‘It is hard to pinpoint exactly what offends most about Ratzinger’s visit. Is it his attempts to rehabilitate child rape within the church [eh?] or his intolerant stance on safe sex and abortion…? It is all of these things, and none.’ Whatever it is, this is ‘legitimate liberal indignation’, she confidently claimed. It’s indignation about something or other – does it matter what?
Yet just because this campaign springs from neediness rather than political clarity, that doesn’t make it endearing or entertaining. On the contrary, there is a sharp authoritarian edge. Things turned ugly outside Downing Street when Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society branded the pope an ‘enemy of the state’, giving rise to the cacophonous chant: ‘GO HOME POPE, GO HOME POPE.’ It was like a scene from 1984. I have been on many a radical demo that has challenged the branding of some group or individual as ‘enemies of the state’; but this is the first radical demo I’ve been on where the protesters themselves demanded the silencing and even expulsion from Britain of someone they decreed to be an ‘enemy of the state’. Even one-time ‘enemies of the state’ – the so-called queers and the old left – were using that criminalising phrase, that piece of political demonology, to chastise the pope. It was the world turned utterly upside down. Being ‘an enemy of the state’, an ‘enemy of women, an enemy of gay people’, there is nothing for the pope to do but ‘go away and leave us alone’, said Sanderson.
It was extraordinary stuff. Consider what is being said: that because the pope’s views run counter to the British state’s views, he has to leave the country. Because he does not support gay rights or women’s equality, he must go home. Partly this is a creepy echo of the old prejudice about Catholics not being sufficiently loyal to the state – but more fundamentally, it speaks to a serious warping of the liberal humanist outlook. If you had to distil the profound, historic tradition of liberal humanism into one principle, it would surely be that no one should be persecuted for having views that are the opposite of the state’s or of mainstream political thought. Yet here was a gathering of so-called humanists clamouring for the expulsion of the pope on the basis that he does not accept ‘British values’, as the QC Geoffrey Robertson described them on Saturday.
One author says the problem with Benedict is that he is ‘spitting in the wind’; he’s standing in the way of a ‘tremendous tsunami of modern tolerance [surging] forward to swamp the rotten structures of family, patriarchy, superstition and sexual prudery’. But doesn’t being Enlightened mean defending people’s right to ‘spit in the wind’? Isn’t tolerance about accepting people’s freedom of conscience to reject mainstream ideologies? These ‘humanists’ have clearly forgotten their John Stuart Mill, who argued against forbidding so-called ‘bad men’ to propagate ‘opinions which we regard as false and pernicious’, even if we believe that those opinions will ‘pervert society’. Saturday’s demo exposed as utterly false the anti-pope lobby’s claim that its only objection to Benedict’s presence in Britain is that it has been organised as a state visit, and an expensive one to boot. No, they don’t want him here, not because of how much he costs, but because of what he believes. And that is genuinely shocking.
Beneath the radical garb, what the liberal fury over Benedict’s visit really represented was a demand that every individual – even the goddamn pope of Rome – should genuflect before the altar of ‘British values’ – that is, the state’s values, the liberal elite’s values – or else face the consequences. Demonisation, perhaps, or expulsion; certainly removal from polite society. No dissent from their creed can be tolerated. I’ve said it before and no doubt I’ll have to say it again in the future: I don’t agree with anything that the pope says. But I come from the kind of humanist tradition where, even when that is the case, you will still defend to the death his right to say it.”

A brief response

Posted by on September 19th, 2010

One of the interesting social elements of the Papal visit has been the wilful misrepresentation and misinterpretation of various of his utterances. Thats selective media for you. Naturally this has been exploited to its fullest extent to both rile and fuel those various groups who oppose the Pope, his visit and what he stands for. This disparate and unusual ‘alliance’ includes evangelical protestants, dissaffected catholics, and secular humanists.

I just want to touch briefly on different misrepresentations (as I percieve them).

– the reductio ad hitlerum.
“Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a ‘reductive vision of the person and his destiny'”

Subtly, perhaps crucially, (maybe even cynically) there is a break in the continuity of his comment. He speaks first of Nazi tyranny, then proceeds to ‘reflect’ on the lessons of atheist extremism in the 20th century. Two distinct (though related) lines of thought. To qoute one respected media commentator: “He did not say that Nazis or Hitler were atheists. He routinely condemns different kinds of dictatorship, including the modern dictatorship of relativism.” adding later on “The Pope didn’t spell out the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century.”

Perhaps this was wise as some atheists refuse to accept (is believe an appropriate phrase?) that in the name of atheism (which by no means should infer criticism of atheism as a system of thought) atrocities have been committed. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are named by some (I can only comment on Stalin). Perhaps also though that he did not spell it out opened himself to criticism. Though I personally feel that whatever he had to say would have attracted criticism from some disaffected quarter.

“I assume the ideal solution from a believers perspective is to be able to speak without any disagreement”

At Westminster the Pope said:

“Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved?”

He then warned:

“If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident – herein lies the real challenge for democracy.”

This seems to belie the idea that he seeks unquestioned acceptance. Even were it religiously motivated this would amount to a social consensus. The “challenge” for democracy then is that “Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation.”

Conversation, dialogue anyone?

“There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. ”

I hear this from a secularist element frequently… which on an aside sounds like defeatism, having been unable to convince the whole of religious believers to abandon their faith it would seem more preferable then to simply not have to listen to it.

“These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square.”

The first two freedoms are important and I would note that the vast majority of the secular world respect and mutually hold. The last line I would agree is in need of clarification. In my opinion religion (as a language game) as a cultural group or as a group expression of culture is as deserved of a right to public expression in national political debate as is any other cultural group.

I cant help myself 🙂
re: Dawkins

“His arguments rather address their beliefs but generally don’t go as far as ad hominem and therefore do not disrespect anyone. Ideas themselves are never owed respect, only people.”

To the last line first. Ideas belonging to the conceptual world are not in a position to demand respect (agreed). A tolerant society that allows the free transmission, acceptance or rejection of those ideas however demands that those voices who project the ideas be respectfully allowed to speak. (I have no trouble with this). Yet isnt that simply an idea of how society should be? An ideal so to speak? Is that not a demand for an idea (freedom of expression) to be respected?

As for Dawkins doesnt do ad hominem…
“a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters’” – a secondary source quote re: the Intelligence Design Lobby*
name-calling e.g. ‘dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument’
On Nadia Ewieda having “one of the most stupid faces I’ve ever seen”.
On the Pope: “a leering old villain in a frock” …

Debate continues in the philosophy world as to what extent “mere” name calling constitutes a logical ad hominem, or whether an ad hominem is merely confined to being a logical fallacy but rather can be extended to being a rhetorical fallacy.

*I asterisk this quote as it is taken from an extensive and ongoing argument between Dawkins detractors who accuse him of a string of ad hominem attacks and his supporters who refuse to countenance such a charge. This quote is peculiar in that when it was used to charge Dawkins with committing ad hominem it was a secondary quote, i.e. somebody else quoting Dawkins. This has been used as a defence (i.e. the quote is inadmissible). Apparently the quote is taken from a Dawkins supporter so the counter-argument goes it has good provenance… the debate is ongoing.
In truth I asterisk it as Dawkins, much like the Pope has a public following and makes public pronouncements either planned or spontaneous, verbal and written. Consequently the media are very deft at msiquoting, misrepresenting and distorting his views. After all a “culture war” between science and religion seemingly makes for good news material.

The more I read and listen to the current Pope’s views the more certain I am that he is wilfully misrepresented. He made frequent comments about dialogue (as opposed to the imposition of one moral code) and about the tolerance of all belief systems and their right to participation in the national dialogue.
This is the real challenge of democracy and the litmus paper against which it may be tested and compared to tyranny.
In our culture some of religion may oppose abortion, some of non-religion may support it and never the twain shall meet. How then should we proceed? In a democracy fair and open and tolerant debate and dialogue must be allowed (are we really so intransigent that we may not change our minds on something or that our consience may not be swayed one way or another?). And it would seem to me a simple utilitarian good of the many must prevail in the final decision making process. (Even though this is a tyranny in itself). Yet it is perhaps only the vanquished, the minority viewpoint who would interpret such an outcome as tyranny. No-one in such a diverse culture as ours will ever be wholly satisfied. But this is why debate and dialogue must continue, and why media misrepresentation of either side must be ignored.

Word Cloud for El Sordo

Posted by on May 20th, 2010


Happy Birthday YtiMii

Images created by the web application are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Draw Mohammed Day

Posted by Anti Citizen One on May 20th, 2010

Liberalism […] c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Merriam-Webster dictionary

Today has been proclaimed “Draw Mohammed Day”. This is an issue I have followed for a few years. The claim of some Muslims is depictions of humans, and particularly their prophet Mohammed, should be prohibited. This is a particularly reactionary use of “the thin end of the wedge argument”, because apparently depicting humans could lead to idolatry. This attitude highlights an apparent contradiction in liberalism: we try to accommodate cultural differences and yet value free expression. The latter should have priority but there is something to be said about not going out of ones way to insult people. Unfortunately, people who have interpreted Mohammad in art, criticism, education or humour have been criticised, threatened and harassed (by various factions respectively). Remember the infamous protests that followed the cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper? Also, the cartoon show South Park was recently censored because of its “depiction” of Mohammad – the postmodern twist is the character depicted was definitely not Mohammad (but the programme was censored anyway).

When I need some amusement, I look at a certain discussion page on wikipedia for the Mohammad article. The main article includes a few historical artistic depictions. Wikipedia has a strict policy of rejecting censorship (nice work, keep it up!) (at least on good days). There is a seemly endless stream of complaints about the images in the article. After the editors state wikipedia does not censor material, the argument moves to “avoiding insult to millions of Muslims”. The editors point out this is not a valid editorial justification. Their stand is a shining example of free expression. The “draw Mohammed day” is also an example of free expression but one that is going to be more controversial. Pakistan has apparently censored the entire facebook site for hosting information about the event. Because of the vocal protests of some Muslims against depictions, this issue has become about free speech as well as about artistic expression. Because the Muslim protesters chose to politicise this issue, they should not be surprised about a counter protest affirming free expression.

Depictions of Mohammed for artistic, humorous or educational use are very different in style compared to depicting Mohammad as a political statement. In a less emotionally charged situation, people might have been content with relatively tame depictions. But the draw Mohammad day will often use depictions that are deliberately insulting to the Muslim protesters. This is justified because it makes the statement, loud and clear, that depictions on Mohammad, “insulting” or not, are permitted in liberal societies. The point of protests, of course, is to send a message. A tame depiction would not be a protest and probably would have little impact. So the Muslim protests have ironically brought this counter protest upon themselves. Some depictions are made that I would not normally support as part of art or education, but I do support them as a protest for free speech. Part of the North Frieze of the US Supreme CourtThis includes deliberately insulting people if the point of the protest is “we support free speech, even when it may be insult to some people”, which is the case in today’s protest. The major disadvantage might be to alienate both sides in the dispute. Without mutual understanding, there can be no agreement. But some times we do not want “agreement” when an acceptable alternative is to “agree to disagree”, which is a principle of liberalism. We don’t want to agree that censorship is good. We can agree they can abide by their believes and we to ours. Our beliefs include they don’t have the right to impose restrictions on other people and they don’t have the right not to be offended.

I am offended at people claiming the right not the be offended. To claim “people ought not to be offended” thus results in a logical paradox, therefore it is absurd and is therefore false.

Anti Citizen One

PS. I incidentally include a photo of part of the North Frieze in the US supreme court. I hope you like it. It’s a depiction of Mohammed (and yes, this is technically not a drawing, but it will do). Photo by abde on Flickr.

Update 21st May: The protest received media coverage and a counter protest. Pakistan has indefinitely banned Youtube and Facebook (although it is accessible to tech savvy users), with some protesters calling for the sites to close completely. Having a counter protest against a pro-free speech protest I find repugnant (obviously they have their right to make such a protest). But their disappearance from youtube and facebook (resulting in an Internet traffic reduction of 25% in Pakistan) is, for the majority, no great shame; a culture who can’t handle free speech should stay off the Internet (I am assuming popular support for anti-free speech here). Actually, if I am more constructive, it would be better for them to protest against government censorship, but I don’t expect that any time soon. Fox News provided a characteristically shallow analysis.

Objective Morality and the Is-Ought Problem

Posted by Anti Citizen One on March 28th, 2010

I was discussing the is-ought problem with a friend and to sharpen my thinking I have written this. The writing style is a homage to Hume.

Philo: The so called “is-ought problem” divides propositions into prescriptive and descriptive statements. Prescriptive statements describe justified moral actions and are commonly stated as “what you should do”. Descriptive statements might succinctly be defined as non-prescriptive propositions and they include statements that describe observable reality, as well as non-moral metaphysical propositions. Writers on moral subjects often begin with first principles and descriptive statements that, after much discussion, conclude with the justification of prescriptive statements. In a close analysis of these moral treatise, we may inquire as to which was the first prescriptive statement in their argument and its respective justification. It seems “altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.” All attempts to bridge this gap by reason have so far failed, and as long as the is-ought problem holds, all moral statements cannot have a final logical basis. This puts laws that guide human actions within the sphere of knowledge but beyond the grasp of philosophers who persist in their attempts to find justification from first principles.

Cleanthes: How absurd to object to the justification of objective morality, as proceeds from the divine being! The justification is plain from what we understand by the only tenable moral system: moral realism. We agree that moral statements are propositions and it is clear that these statements can either be true or false. The truth or falsity exists independent of our opinions as they have existed for all time and are immutable and perfect due to their divine origin. How can you claim this does not satisfy your requirement for logical justification?

Philo: I will attempt to educe [to work out from given facts] this point and show the infirmity of such a justification. When asked, all men are able to provide justifications for their just actions. These justifications may be codified into general principles that illustrate what a man should do in any particular circumstance. And as admitted by all men of good sense, this standard of righteousness proceeds from the divine mind. Take a particular moral action, say “feeding the hungry” and you claim this action is justified by objective morality. But what are the grounds that may I use as the basis for this justification? Or in direct language, why should men follow the principles of objective morality?

Cleanthes: Isn’t this basis self evident and obvious? We agree that objective morality is universal, divine, timeless and perfect and are therefore the principles that a good man should use as a basis for actions. It proceeds from the definition and divine nature of objective morality that it describes what action should be taken by a man. To use your example of “feed the hungry”, God has created a system of laws which is objective and independent of opinion. One law, or part, of objective morality is the imperative to “feed the hungry”. This action is therefore universally justified, except when other divine laws are at stake and we may be satisfied by this justification. Your semantic objections to what is widely affirmed to be true would seem to me as utterly futile.

Demea: We are agreed on the infinite, good and perfect nature of God, Cleanthes, but I am wondering how man might have certain knowledge of the justification of objective moral law. Since this matter is considered by many to be obvious, while I believe it is not so, I will attempt to illustrate my view on the matter. Consider the most abstract conception of God and we may see that there are few or no properties that proceed automatically from the definition of such an entity a-priori. Since the divine nature is so far removed from our every day experiences, we may gain knowledge of God’s commandments, that is “descriptive objective law”, though what ever means are available to man but we cannot a-priori say that God’s privilege to dictate men’s actions. Although you may argue your case from your limited experience of the world, it is presumptuous to assert that this provides justification to any “prescriptive objective law”, since that would incorrectly apply concepts of human origin on the adorable mysteriousness of the divine nature. We can still ask what is the justification of man following God’s commandments, and it remains upon you, Cleanthes, to support your assertion that we can know that divine law is prescriptively justified.

Philo: It seems to me, that there is a distinction in our usage of the concept objective morality, Cleanthes. You have claimed men should follow divine law because it proceeds from God. I will attempt to clarify our definitions in the hopes of clarifying our thought. Your usage of the concept of objective morality implies the definition of “a system of right and wrong conduct which should be followed” which simply means “actions men should do”. Under this definition, objective morality is a prescriptive statement. When I asked you earlier what was the justification, you stated it is by definition justified by objective morality and by your definition, it clearly is. But can you see that if I ask “why should we feed the hungry” and you answer simply “it is objective morality”, which merely means “it is what men should do”, should you be surprised when this answer fails to satisfy? Your claim that the prescriptive justification of objective morality proceeds from the very definition of objective morality is simply an admission of your argument’s tautology!

Cleanthes: You both seem to argue the most abstract and absurd objections, when all reason, common sense and evidence points to God as being the creator and therefore sovereign in the world. This fact being well known and acknowledged even by yourselves. And you, Demea, claim on one hand that God is king of the world and on the other that we cannot know* God is the king of the world! As for you, Philo, who would not accept the plain and succinct answer to your question, I say: objective law should be followed as it is commanded by the creator and sovereign of the world. This answer is equivalent to my first justification, which you seem to fail to grasp, that is the origin and nature of objective law justifies our following it.

Philo: Which provides the justification for objective law? Its origin or its nature? I have already argued that the nature of objective law cannot, without tautology, be shown to be its own justification. And as for objective morality’s origin, the king of the world, you have shifted your justification to a new concept: the sovereignty of God. But your remark that this argument is equivalent to that which you stated at first, opens this point to the same objections. Why should we follow the commands of a sovereign? That God created the world and he is its lord is agreed, but from this descriptive statement of God, it does not logically follow that men should obey him. In reality, Cleanthes, you keep on the same treadmill of stating X is the justification of Y, where all we can of X is that it is defined as “the justification of Y” and we never reach satisfactory descriptive axioms. We can always ask for the logical justification of X and you are likely to posit W as the justification, and so on. You have so far justified “men should feed the hungry” by claiming “men should follow objective moral law” which is justified by “men should obey God’s sovereignty”. We again ask what is the justification of the latter? Without resorting to infinite regress, we may admit, as is acknowledged among the more discerning philosophers, the derivation of prescriptive statements has not yet been achieved from purely descriptive statements.

Pamphilus: “I cannot but think, that PHILO’s principles are more probable than DEMEA’s; but that those of CLEANTHES approach still nearer to the truth.”

by Anti Citizen PhilONE 🙂

PS “Murder is wrong” (or “Murder is illegal”) is also tautology. Hint: look up the definition of murder.
*Deliberate straw man here.

On the Origin of Species, 150th years old today!

Posted by Anti Citizen One on November 24th, 2009

Yes, not sure I agree with arbitrary anniversaries. But still, it is a very influential book. Having not read it, I think I might. I was also thinking of commenting on Nietzsche’s disagreements with Darwin’s theory. One area I think he was mistaken. It’s kind of ironic that some people associate the two thinkers. Too tired… *yawn*


On Tyranny

Posted by on July 30th, 2009

When I read this quote by C.S.Lewis today I couldnt help but feel that it applied not only to the major and obvious examples but also to the many subtle and noxious tyrannies that we are all at some point subject to or perhaps even unconciously participating in.

Some tyrannies I have in mind (and there are many others):

Militant Secularism/Atheism (that would push all religion to the private sphere)

Religious Fundamentalism (the type that seeks social conformity in belief)

Scientism (the belief that the natural sciences has authority over all other interpretations of life and fields of enquiry)

Ratio-Fascism (the assertion that only rationalism is valuable as en explanation or a field of enquiry into the world)

Political Correctness

Total Rights Assertion (the imposition of one perceieved “right” at the expense of other “rights”)

Objective Relativism (the absurd notion that all the varieties of traditions must be equal to everyone)

50% + 1 (the tyranny of the majority – the good of the many etc.)

Ethnocentrism (the viewpoint that “one’s own group is the center of everything,” against which all other groups are judged.)

countless other “isms” (I welcome contributions to this threadbare list)…

anyway here is the quote:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”   C.S.Lewis

A quote

Posted by on June 3rd, 2009

I read this qoute on another blog. It both interested and in a way inspired me to a deep reflection. I offer no comment on it for I feel it may be interpreted and appreciated in many ways by different people so I therefore reproduce it as it is.

“Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

G.K.Chesterton Orthodoxy