These are the rules of the new world order coming into being. Who could go against such decency but what do these injunctions really signify? Scratch the surface to go behind the pleasant exterior and you see something rather different.
Be good and conform. Don't rock the boat, obey the status quo. Put the group, as defined by the authorities, before yourself. Sustain the system.
Evil is not going to put itself in a bad light now. Its tactics have changed from simple destruction to assimilation and so in order to deceive as many people as possible it must pretend to be good. But the goodness it pretends to is one that fortifies itself because it will not countenance a real spiritual goodness that puts the source and end of good beyond this world. It will only accept a goodness that reinforces its God-denying materialism and flattening of the hierarchy of qualities to an egalitarian orthodoxy in which nothing is fundamentally better than anything else.
Being kind implies wishing for the good of a person and working for that good. But this raises the question of what is the good? Merely being kind is meaningless. Am I kind to the child that I keep stuffing with ice cream? Am I kind when I allow that same child to go out with his friends when he should be doing his homework? It might seem so to the child but obviously I am not being kind at all. I am just indulging both the child and myself either because I am stupid or irresponsible or weak or simply want to be liked. Being kind is a totally meaningless injunction on its own, the product of short-sighted sentimentality and ignorance. Sometimes being apparently unkind is the kindest way to be. It all depends what the goal is.
God allows suffering in this world. Is he unkind? He's clearly not nice as conventionally understood. The fact of suffering makes people deny God but they conveniently ignore the fact of everything else. There is obviously more good than bad in human life or we would all kill ourselves but hardly any of us do. However, I am straying from the point. The point is God is not kind by the accepted canons of the day so perhaps kindness, niceness, is not the prime virtue. That obviously does not mean the opposite is true. We certainly should be kind but we should be kind in the context of knowing what the true good is. Without that knowledge kindness will quickly degrade into the enabling of evil.
5 comments:
@William - Well, yes - most of the time. But in the past few days, be-nice-be-kind has been dumped in favour of approving violence/ destruction/ frenzy.
The passive, cringing, sheltering middle classes - who would try to discredit and fine anyone who ventures outdoors and got too close; are now cheering and goading mob violence (violence based-upon an hierarchy of lies) - but, this being here-and-now, this approved violence is based-upon deep self-hatred.
These motivations are simply used and discarded by The System according to expedience, and in pursuit of ever more complete annihilation/ inversion of The Good.
I can't disagree, Bruce. The reality is as you describe but I would still say that the excuse used to justify the anti-racism dogma is be kind. Ignore truth and be kind.
What has come to light (or should have for thinking people) in the past week is our general attitude toward anger. It is one of the 7 deadly sins, which means it is a gateway to several other related sins. "Be nice" is a often mouthed sentiment, but "Be angry" appears to have displaced it. That anger is a deadly sin is forgotten. This may be partly due to the concept of "just anger." The fact that Jehovah appears to have anger as his default position in the Old Testament and that Jesus is sometimes portrayed through actions and words apparently stemming from anger (the clearing of the temple, the frequent harsh words to his opponents), has led to this bifurcation of anger as both moral and immoral, depending on circumstances and motive. Now, our politicians, corporations and the media have become the champions of "just anger." The alleged injustice of George Floyd's death is regarded as a justification for violence, looting, vandalism, assaults and even murder. Floyd (a career violent criminal) has been canonized and his hagiography touted by a lying media. The rule of law, which should decide the guilt or innocence of the police involved in Floyd's death has been usurped by the violent mob. It's difficult to imagine how society can ever regain a semblance of rational order from this point on. Americans outside the cities are arming themselves and preparing to assume the defense of life and property that the police have abandoned, at the order of their elected masters. Thus, we see the meaning of what is meant by a deadly sin. Anger is the death of reason, the enemy of love, the spur of violence. What man can wield it justly?
You're quite right edwin. The 'be kind' injunction of fashionable modern liberalism is easily displaced by anger and shown to be the fake thing it always was. The passions of the mob have been released and a large part of the establishment turns a blind eye, being only concerned with the personally advantageous and the expedient. The divisions in society are now so deep that it is hard to see what can overcome them. The virus pushed them to one side for a brief period but it is astonishing how quickly and how savagely they have come back.
"Be good and conform. Don't rock the boat, obey the status quo. Put the group, as defined by the authorities, before yourself. Sustain the system."
Yes, diversity is just about outer cosmetics; selling a 'unique' image of the persona in a blurry mass of competing individualists, who have no soul independence but are spellbound by the collective hive mind. The modern, godless lack of self-esteem leads to a constant search for outer validation. This creates an over-socialized and over-positive society, in which appeasing "kindness" (or face before truth) is translated into a virtue, when it is actually a weakness (a mix of hight trait agreeableness and conflict aversion). As well as the mercantile mindset of always catering to the customer and the democratic objective of "making everyone get along". The "kindness" dogma leaves out that conflict (including physical) is a valid and sometimes necessary mode of communication. But They don't have any sense for martial virtues, and want face before truth. They simply don't want competition from sovereign men, and will collectively bully and stigmatize anyone who exposes that the emperor is naked. This is not a virtuous way to run a democracy or a civilization. It's a kindergarten, and it's time to stop playing the game.
Post a Comment