Ethnicity and Racism

For the sake of "diversity" we allowed the concept of "ethnicity" to enter our cultures. While we have always valued differences here in the US--for example in Holland, Michigan the Dutch are so old fashioned that people from The Netherlands often travel here during the Tulip Festival to see the old traditions long forgotten in Holland--there is a difference between celebrating such things, and trading it up for racism, which we have done.

30 years ago, the author Ayn Rand saw this form of racism coming and described it:

"'Ethnicity' is an anti-concept, used as a disguise for the word “racism”—and it has no clearly definable meaning. . . . The term “ethnicity” stresses the traditional, rather than the physiological characteristics of a group, such as language—but physiology, i.e., race, is involved . . . . So the advocacy of “ethnicity,” means racism plus tradition—i.e., racism plus conformity—i.e., racism plus staleness."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ethnic…

For the sake of ethnicity, the left "celebrates" the dialect called Ebonics, and once advocated teaching it in schools! But by institutionalizing it as they did, they made it a target for educators who saw it, not as a valid dialect, but as as horrible lack of education, a failure by the educational system. Those educators didn't despise the uneducated, but despised the left for institutionalizing a failed system. However, those less educated than the educators looked at what the left advocated, and began hating the messenger--those who used Ebonics. Those who use Ebonics are now the targets of racists who say that the blacks and other poor who use Ebonics are inferior. This began when the left "celebrated" the diversity of the ethnic classes too poor to learn proper ( or at least good) English.

Because of our "celebration" of ethnicity, it has become taboo to question the many large and small Muslim communities in the US who refuse to learn English, communities we now find are organizing to send their youth to the Middle East for training in terrorist camps. This doesn't mean that even the majority of people living in those communities agree with terrorism--they do live in the US for other reasons, after all--but politically correct celebrations of ethnicity have not allowed us to properly question the motives of people who appear to be questionable citizens in those communities.

The same can be said for "ethnics" all over the globe. One reason for the Balkan War of the 1990s was "ethnic cleansing". That is what Hitler was doing, also.

"The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people....It was the culmination, largely influenced by the Belgian colonization which favored the Tutsi minority group because of their more 'European' appearance, of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the minority Tutsi, and the majority Hutu peoples."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Gen…

"Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration."
http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.h…

It is not what the Israelis want to do to the Muslims; after all half of Jerusalem is controlled by Muslims, and Yassar Arafat had the chance to create a Palestinian nation during his life time, but at the last minute, after all the years of wars and negotiations, "the Old Warrior" changed his mind and said no, because the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Palestine was more important to him.

So long as we celebrate "ethnicity" and not simply the cultural differences and traditions, racism will continue to escalate.

Ardi Pithecus ™,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^sm,
  Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ©,
 The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
   Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©
and   The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
    are the educational arms of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC, and are:  
©2008-2010 by Curtis Edward Clark and, Naturalist Academy Publishing, ^sm

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

 

Objective Moral Standards

The first time the word "objective" was apparently used was "1610s, originally in the philosophical sense of 'considered in relation to its object'".

Objective moral truths are in relation to the object, rather than subjective in relation to pragmatic or other types of ends.

The object which such objective truths are in relation to is the standard that makes morality necessary: the life of Man both as species and as individual. This is set according to what Aristotle called "Man qua Man", or to put it another way, what is it about man that makes morals necessary?

It cannot be simply the preservation of the species--Hitler was doing that by preserving what he believed were Aryans. What Aristotle, Aquinas, Wm. of Occam, Averroes, and other rational thinkers could not conceive of didn't become a concrete idea until Jefferson and others like Madison and Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine read the works of Locke and Rousseau.

Locke, along with Rousseau, described a civilization in which government is "by the consent of the governed." This led to the American realization that there was such a thing as "individual sovereignty." This was logical, since to give consent to a government to do for you what is best not to do vigilante style, and what is best for "the general welfare", and what leaves you the most time on your hands for such things as living---to give consent you must first have that which you are giving away.

"Locke's theory of natural rights was, indeed, the theory of natural rights to which the Declaration would refer..."Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm

It is individual sovereignty, until the 18th century only a vague idea in the minds of freethinkers and libertarians, that is the source of the need for moral standards. "Objective truths" are those that correspond to man's nature as the rational animal: he must be given the freedom to utilize that rationality as nature has given it to him.

But more than that, it is that each man must be protected from force and coercion that would prevent him from utilizing that gift of individual sovereignty that nature gave him.

The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^sm,  
Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ©, 
 The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©, 
 Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©
and The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
  and Ardi Pithecus ™
  are the educational arms of 
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC, and are:  
©2008-2010 by Curtis Edward Clark and, Naturalist Academy Publishing, ^sm 

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com 

Conservative Politics and Liberty

The life of Man must be defined as unalienably self-sovereign.

In a recent article in American Thinker, Bruce Walker wrote this piece of politically conservative observation:

"Seventy-five years ago this month, one of the most insidious laws in human history came into effect in Nazi Germany. The innocent sounding name was The Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring. It was the ghastly pinnacle of an unholy theory of human eugenics. Darwinism -- not the Theory of Evolution, per se, but the sinister notion that natural selection made God superfluous -- liberated man from his obligation to treat fellow men as special creatures in a divinely ordered universe."

While Walker is correct in calling the law "insidious," and "the ghastly pinnacle" of eugenics, he demonstrates what is wrong with conservative epistemology, namely, the inability to see that political and social values and the virtues required to attain them must be values and virtues proper to Man--not to a God who is unattainable in life.

Men are never "liberated" from their "obligation to treat fellow men" as endowed with self-sovereignty. Whether or not God is "superfluous" can never be allowed to be part of the equation. The most avid atheists are often the most avid defenders of human rights, and they see no "divine" order in the universe.

What they see is the equality of creatures born with the unalienable right to life and liberty. The necessity of saying "liberty" ought to be superfluous itself, since the right to life necessitates the liberty necessary to live life as the rational animal. It is entirely superfluous to say "and the pursuit of happiness," for the same rationale.
However, it has come in handy in certain arguments with people who forget that the right to pursue one's happiness necessitates the liberty to achieve it.

It ought to be enough to simply say, "Until a man violates the rights--equal to his own, of other men--he has the right to libertarian life." Libertarian in this sense does not include the right to violate the rights of other men, which are equal in value by virtue of their unalienablity by right of birth.

Libertarian means specifically the ability to act with all the unalienable rights of birth with which Man is endowed by the nature of his metaphysical existence. That existence is defined as "the rational animal."

It can only be when a man has violated the equal rights of others that justice may require forfeiture of his libertarianism for a time, e.g., jail or prison or probation. In some cases of gross violation justice has required he forfeit his very life.

America's Founders were mostly Deists, no matter which denomination they attended. It was politically incorrect for public leaders not to attend a regular denomination such as Baptist or Episcopal, but there were some like Thomas Paine who managed to evade without even that constraint on his freedom. He had to flee America for France, literally for his safety and probably his life, in order to remove that constraint, until President Jefferson invited him back with a guarantee of his safety.

It is important to note America's Deist beginings because those Deists were more dedicated to worshiping God than were most of the commoners who followed established denominations. There is one and only reason for being able to say this: the Deists themselves said their devotion to the virtue of Reason and to the Rule of Law was precisely because they believed it was God himself who had endowed Man with that virtue.

Then He stepped back and allowed the nature he had created to run its course. A form of Darwinism one to two centuries before Darwin was born was part of the metaphysics of Deism. They believed God was superfluous only because He was willing to let the Reason He had provided them rule the affairs of the Men He had created as rational creatures.

Libertarian action translates into the value of being both free of coercion from others, and is non-coercion of others, for the purpose of furthering the pursuit of human life as well as one's own, through the virtue of Reason.

Yet, "when one speaks of a man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others." Ayn Rand; The Virtue of Selfishness: The Objectivist Ethics

The Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring was ghastly because it used the power of government to choose the criteria set by a leader with a criminal mind, criteria for the sacrifice of others. Clearly Hitler's was not "rational" self-interest. Rational self-interest cannot be coercive or it is self-defeating and therefor non-rational.

But conservatives do not see that such men--Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mugabe, Stalin, Pol Pot--care nothing about whether or not God is superfluous. The only thing such men have ever cared about is power, and that is the power to control.

If it is insidious to find God superfluous, then America's Deists were insidious. Since that is not a word that can be used to describe them, Mr. Walker uses a "package deal" consisting of tying together the concepts of Hitler's policies with a disregard for God, as if God was anywhere in Hitler's thoughts. Corrupting or ignoring a "divinely ordered universe" was never a consideration for Hitler.

If Hitler had a devout belief in God, he would have continued his policies, believing as do Islamicists that what they do is in the name of God.

Neither Hitler nor the world's current Islamicists believe they are liberated from any obligation to "treat fellow men as special creatures in a divinely ordered universe." As a matter of fact, Islamicists believe that to continue the "divinely ordered universe" of Allah it is moral to martyr one's self in the destruction of those who actually see Allah--but not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God--as superfluous.

A supernatural God is superfluous for anyone who calls him or herself a naturalist, because in the cosmic scheme of the laws of nature, "nature's god" did not create existence.

The only "sinister notion" in natural selection is in the motives of men who refuse to accept individual sovereignty as the right of every human being, the selection by nature's god of the species of Man to be the one to obtain the virtue of rationality.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/