Moral Psychology

Jon Haidt’s discussion of human ultrasociality and sacred values is worth listening to. Basically, Haidt discusses how sacred values bind (religare) human groups and allow for complex social organization. In turn, individuals in those groups, acting as moral theologians, defend those binding sacred values through various strategies. Presumably, gene-culture coevolution shaped humans into natural moral theologians.

According to contemporary moral psychology, moral-theologies have a functional purpose. They provide societies with a system of sacred values which allows for social cohesion; individuals define themselves communally in relation to a society’s sacred values. Accordingly, the desecration of a system of sacred values will negate the social utility of the moral-theological system and the society will be left in need of a new system around which its members can rally.

I think the rightblogosphere has done a good job at identifying the moral-theological nature of Liberal-multiculturalism. This is just the start. Just as the cultural marxists dissected Christian-Europeanism (and cultural-nationalism in general), identified its weakness, and engaged in intellectual Jutsu to invert it into Liberal-multiculturalism, right thinkers must, in turn, dissect Liberal-multiculturalism and complete the dialectic.

With regards to Christian-Europeanism, cultural marxists identified the rationalist-universalistic nature of Christianity and the objective-scientific nature of European man’s self-understanding. They used these as points of attack. They deconstructed the European man by empirically “proving” that this group of people (i.e. the White race) didn’t exist (objectively-scientifically) after which they reconstructed him by logically “proving” that this group of people (i.e the West) was all people (rationally understood.) Accordingly, it was shown that not being a pan-humanist was equivalent to being “unscientific” and “irrational.” As objectivity and rationality have been two central western values for two and a half millennium, this was an effective line of attack; though, of course, it was not the only one used. It would be a mistake, of course, to see Liberal Multiculturalism as a culturally idiosyncratic phenomena. And the fact that some of the same lines of attack seem to be effective amongst culturally distinct people, should give us pause when it comes to considerations of the specific mechanism by which Liberal-multiculturalism takes hold of a people.

Regardless, the issue here is identifying the weaknesses inherent in the moral-theology of Liberal-multiculturalism. Specifically, we are interesting in those weaknesses that would allow us to turn the values of Liberal-multiculturalism against itself and those weaknesses that would allow us to bypass the moral defenses of Liberal theologians and commit wanton desecration — our version of pissing on Jesus or chopping down the Donar Oak.

With regards to desecration, SBPDL is ahead of the curve.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Moral Psychology

  1. Sophia says:

    ‘Accordingly, it was shown that not being a pan-humanist was equivalent to being “unscientific” and “irrational.”’

    Interesting. I’m actually a pan-humanist myself, but there is no reason pan-humanists cannot take into account human biodiversity and implement voluntary eugenics. Rationally, this will only benefit humanity in the long run (and especially the least fortunate groups). I also see no problem with Aryans (for example) having pride in being Aryan, while (unlike the “chosen”) TRULY identifying as human beings first.

    • Chuck says:

      The problem isn’t pan-humanism. The problem is the totalitarian aspect. Though, I think the two are related. The pan-humanist identifies with the “human race”; to particularists like myself, humankind is an abstraction and particular types of humans are the reality. It is only through the reality that the abstract can be known and appreciated. To the extent I care about the “human race,” it’s because I care about me, my family, my kin, and so on, extending outwards. Now some might find that primitive and crude and that’s fine — what’s not fine is when my way primitive, crude way of relating to the world is deemed “bad” and “racist” on the account of it not coinciding with the way of others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s