Chapter One: New Draft: The New Ethos
Chapter 1:
Moral Axioms:
Common Sense Can Die-
If You Let the Liars Kill It.
“...the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans....”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War (III.3)
“War is Hell!”
-General William Tecumseh Sherman
“Rhetoric is War!”
-Tickle
Throughout this book, the term neo-Marxist will be used to refer to all the people in contemporary western society who have adopted the propaganda practices and some or all of the political and economic principles of traditional Marxist dogma. The term New Ethos will also be used throughout to identify the ethical and quasi-religious belief system of these same people. By no means do I mean to suggest that they all have the same goals or that they all thoroughly embrace traditional Marxism. Most of them have read very little Marx and would not be able to understand him if they had. The fact is that this very large group of people has divided itself up into many different factions with very many different-sometimes conflicting-political agendas. What they all have in common is their reverence for the traditional icons of Marxist revolution and their love for Political Correctness and for the methods of Marxist propaganda. They all admire the vicious efficiency and economy of effort that those methods offer. They are in love with the fact that, while the methods are so simple that even a moron could use them, those methods do actually work. They work very well, and they work so well that well-placed neo-Marxist morons have very nearly taken over the entire civilized world while everybody else was paying them no attention. This sad reality is evidenced no where better than in higher education, the traditional ivory tower of the academy. In the case of most colleges and universities, the faculty “are overwhelmingly liberal in their political ideology, creating a strong campus political culture,” composed primarily of dedicated, faithful, anti-American, anti-capitalist, even openly Marxist professors [1]. Those advocating this leftist, socialist political ideology have taken over the management of most colleges and universities and taken over the training and education of the vast majority of public school teachers in the USA. It is also more than safe to say that this socialist political ideology is, in fact, exactly what I will continue to refer to in this book as neo-Marxism.
One of the most insidious rhetorical strategies used by the neo-Marxist propagandist is the attack on basic, common-sense moral assumptions, assumptions that the rest of the population simply take as granted, as given, in any discussion or debate between rational persons. By relentlessly attacking these basic assumptions, decade after decade, the neo-Marxists have managed to convince a large number of people that these assumptions are questionable and open for debate. They have even managed to convince themselves and many others that these assumptions are false, that they are destructive lies. There are some civilized, well-educated people who will actually believe and who will actually tell other people that there is no such thing as truth. Everything is relative. There are no wrong answers. Logic is an ugly, oppressive illusion created by the Man to repress everyone, especially women and minorities. Logic is no better than any other method of analysis. Everyone’s opinion is of equal value. There are no winners. There are no losers. Most sane people know that such ravings are foolish and stupid, but the number who do not know it and who cannot even see it is growing every day.
They have been using this tactic for so long that some people cannot even see or understand that it is happening, and it is particularly clever and extremely effective in two very important ways. Number one, it allows the neo-Marxist to cavalierly dismiss any argument based upon traditional moral assumptions. Number two, it makes it easy for him to bog down the discussion and debate with arguments about the fundamental ideals that most people accept as axiomatic. Then, the fight over fundamental assumptions goes on and on until everyone on both sides is so tired and worn out that the real issues that need to be addressed disappear, never to be dealt with. This tactic is the neo-Marxist propagandist’s equivalent of Mohammed Ali’s Rope-a-Dope strategy for the boxing ring [2]. Refuse to engage until the opponent is so tired that he actually wants to be knocked out, just so the whole thing can be over. Sad and pathetic, but very effective.
Some traditional assumptions about human nature and about the world that people live in are actually true. And, since those things are true, a person need not spend the rest of his life trying to prove that they are true before he uses them as given ideals in his arguments. Regardless of what the neo-Marxists say, one need not acknowledge their challenge to the most simple truths. By forcing people to engage in debate over the most simple truths, the truths that most people build their lives on, the neo-Marxist can completely avoid engaging people in arguments concerning the truly important issues of the day. In an attempt to make the real issues disappear from the table, the neo-Marxist tries to change the basic assumptions about truth and morality into issues of debate.
Regardless of how hard they attack them or how much they want to challenge these assumptions, no one should let them do so. If neo-Marxists refuse to give up the attack on any of these assumptions, turn the tables on the enemy. Stop the debate and force them to demonstrate to the whole world why the obvious truth in question is false or illusory. Nothing is more humiliating for an opponent than to be seen grasping for straws while he tries to explain to the world how he could possibly justify rejecting the most basic moral assumptions without a second thought, a single care, or a rational argument. Willingly acknowledge that these simple truths are at the foundation of all arguments, but never apologize for taking them as granted. Force the opponent to explain how he can take it for granted that they are false and unacceptable.
The list below is by no means comprehensive; even so, I have tried to be as thorough as possible in a work of this kind. All of the other arguments in this book are based upon these assumptions. They are always taken by me as self-evident-whether my opponents like them or not. It is not up to me to prove them to anyone. Anyone stupid enough to disagree with these Moral Axioms has the obligation to disprove them, to disprove something that most people accept without question. By doing so they will only make themselves look foolish and strengthen their opponents arguments.
The Moral Axioms That People of Reason and Faith are Allowed to Take for Granted
[Surrendering these given principles will make many of your traditional, common sense arguments impossible in the face of Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism.]
1. God exists, and God Almighty Himself created the universe we live in and everything in it. Only by his will is it sustained. This universe is the product of His Divine Providence, and the course of everything-past, present, and future-is taken into consideration as part of that Divine Providence. Being a rational person does not require that one believe in God, but believing in God does not disqualify one from logical debate. An argument that assumes the existence of God is no more irrational than an argument that assumes that God does not exist. A person may try to question the truth of an argument that assumes God exists. But, assuming that God exists, does not immediately bring into question the validity or the logic of the argument, even if the neo-Marxist attacks such an argument on that basis.
2. An atheist is never going to offer an argument that does not include the assumption that God is a figment of other people’s imaginations. That fact does not mean that I must construct arguments that only work for those who assume that there is no God. It is not my task to prove that God exists anymore than it is the atheist’s task to prove that God does not exist. It is not up to me to challenge his faith in the non-existence of God. In fact, all that I can do is offer pity to those who have no faith in or experience of God.
3. Evil is real. Evil exists. It is not a social construct. It is not an invention of Mankind, and no one made up the idea hoping to control people simple enough to believe in it. It is not an invention of the Bourgeoisie designed to keep the Proletariat in its proper place-repressed, controlled, and terrified to fight back. There are, in fact, forces in the universe, including some persons, which are filled with hatred, malice, bitterness, and self-obsessed willfulness.
4. Some human beings will substitute their own will for the will of God and for the will of any and all authority. They will also privilege their own will over that of all other human beings. This ultimate level of self obsession is the true origin of evil. It is-in fact-the definition of evil.
5. All people have Free Will to choose for themselves what they will. No person and no thing in the universe can take that Free Will away from them, and all people are responsible for their own choices and must suffer the consequences of those choices and the actions to which they lead.
6. While-for good reason-we may privilege animal life forms over vegetable life, fauna over flora, that does not mean that vegetable life is not really life. All life is sacred and must be treated with reverence, even when it must be destroyed so that other life forms may live. All that lives was given life by God Himself; all living things are His creatures in that He created them all, animal and vegetable. Never forget that there are even plants in this world that are themselves carnivores. I wonder if those plants prefer to eat vegetarians? Or, perhaps, PETA activists?
7. Every living creature possesses the inherent, unalienable right to survive, even if that creature must fight to do so, even if that creature must use deadly force to do so. Yet, some creatures will die, and some will live. Some creatures will even become food for others. These facts are unavoidable and undeniable.
8. As long as his freedom does not threaten the lives and well-being of other human beings, every human being possesses inherent, unalienable freedom, even if that human being must fight to be free, even if that human being must use deadly force to secure his freedom.
9. Some conflicts cannot be resolved without the use of physical violence. Some of those conflicts cannot be resolved without the use of deadly force.
10. Some people in the world allow themselves to focus upon all things negative, including death, destruction, and hatred. These people are evil.
11. Some of the evil people in the world will use deadly force to accomplish their own goals, and those same evil people have planned and continue to plan the death and destruction of persons whom they hate.
12. Many of the evil people with such plans are inflexible, unwilling to compromise, and not open to negotiation. There are, in fact, some people in the world who will not listen to reason and who will not respond to any amount of talk or negotiation.
13. When a person knows for a fact that evil people are planning his destruction and his murder, that person need not remain inactive until those evil people choose to attack. Self-defense does not always require one to wait for the murderer to attack first before the defender uses deadly force.
14. There are, in fact, some no win situations. Sometimes a person finds himself faced with a set of circumstances in which every course of action-including no action at all-will create a negative result or violate some code or basic principle of right and wrong. In those circumstances, a person must choose the course of action that does the least harm or that constitutes the smallest transgression of code or basic principle. This is commonly know as "choosing the lesser of two evils."
15. Knowledge is, by definition, good, and the pursuit of knowledge, learning, and wisdom is good. The pursuit of knowledge is essential to the pursuit of Truth. Worthwhile knowledge and Truth are actually the same thing.
16. Truth is real. Truth does exist. The truth is out there, and you can find it. The Pursuit of Truth is the Pursuit of God Himself, for God and Truth are the same thing.
17. Absolute truth exists, and absolute truth is the ultimate goal of Mankind and of all academic endeavors. The belief that Relativism can serve as a replacement for absolute truth is a misleading, destructive illusion. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that logic is useless and that academic endeavors are meaningless and fruitless. The Oxford American Dictionary defines absolute as “not qualified or diminished in any way; total.” The Oxford American Dictionary defines truth as the quality or state of being “in accordance with fact or reality”; being “rightly or strictly so called; genuine”; being “real or actual”; or being “accurate or exact.” The Oxford American Dictionary defines relativism as “the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.”
18. Ignorance and stupidity are-by definition-bad, and the conscious avoidance of knowledge, learning, and wisdom is evil.
19. Logic and analytical skills are unnatural and must be taught. Like language, they are not acquired by accident, and they are not instinctive.
20. Some people in the world choose to be ignorant and stupid because acquiring education and using the brains that God gave them are difficult and time-consuming. It is much easier to be lazy, ignorant, and stupid, so many people are glad to stay that way throughout their lives. The choice to be ignorant and stupid is not only the lazy, sloppy, easy choice, it is also the willing embrace of evil.
21. Equality and fairness mean equality of rights and opportunities, not equality of outcomes. The Oxford American Dictionary defines Equality as “the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.” Every citizen of the USA is a human being with the same rights and opportunities, but each and every one of them is unique in his or her gifts and talents. Everyone’s ultimate outcomes are necessarily different, and whether you call it luck, random chance, or destiny, something beyond the control of individuals or governments plays some role in determining each unique individual’s outcomes in life.
22. Equality and Uniformity are not the same. The Oxford American Dictionary defines Uniformity as the quality of “not changing in form or character; remaining the same in all cases and at all times.” Human beings are not uniform, nor should they ever be treated by their government as if they were.
23. Uniformity is evil. Treating all citizens as if they were unchanging in form or character and as if they were all the same in all cases and at all times, that would be unfair, simple-minded, and destructive. Even so, such uniformity is necessary for those who march down the road of tyranny and communism. One size that fits all rarely means anything apart from one size that fits no one.
24. Diversity actually means that it is alright to be different; that it is good to be different; and that, from differences, come strength and power. The Oxford American Dictionary defines diversity as the state of “showing a great deal of variety”; the state of being “(of two or more things) markedly different from one another.” Diversity is a powerful force for good and for progress. But, diversity does not mean that we are all the same without any regard for our differences. In fact, the opposite is true. Even so, many people and many governmental institutions act as if people are all exactly the same, and no context or ideal can ever allow for people to be treated as if they were in fact different, even if their qualitative differences are inherently obvious.
25. Merit has a place in a just society. It is not something that you are born with. It is something you earn. The Oxford American Dictionary defines merit as “the quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deserve praise or reward.” Merit was not dreamed up as an excuse for exercising prejudice and bigotry. The only kind of merit that counts is the merit someone earns. Some people will earn more than others. Some will be satisfied to earn less than others. Some are better than others, and some are actually best.
26. Some answers are actually wrong; while some answers are actually right, actually true. In reality, everything is not-after all-relative.
Neo-Marxists will never pass up an opportunity to attack these basic, traditional moral assumptions, and they will always refuse to engage any arguments based upon them. Yet, the truth is neo-Marxists have their own set of cherished beliefs that they never stop to question and about which they will suffer no discussion or debate. In fact, the absolute acceptance of those cherished beliefs constitutes their one and only measure of a person’s intellectual ability. By definition, the people who agree with their cherished beliefs are brilliant, god-like geniuses who walk the Earth for the benefit of all mankind. By definition, those people who do not blindly accept their cherished beliefs are idiots, morons, the lowest form of sentient life known to Mankind. That is the full extent of the neo-Marxist’s analytical process. Nothing more complex or sophisticated is ever really necessary.
As with the list above, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive or comprehensive. These are just a few of the possibilities. Just remember that no one has any more responsibility to accept these assumptions than does the neo-Marxist to accept traditional moral values. Also, remember that this writer does NOT embrace these ideals. These are the ones that I have rejected. In fact, I try to violate these principles as frequently as possible just to irritate all the closed-minded neo-Marxists in my life.
The Assumptions of Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism [3]
1. Offending someone enough to cause that person to experience a powerful emotional response is never acceptable and is one of the most heinous things a human being can do. It is especially important to respect the cherished beliefs of the New Ethos, the standards adopted by those who have rejected traditional moral axioms and embraced the mechanism of Political Correctness. To offend the sensibilities of the neo-Marxist is taboo, is absolutely verboten. To do so can and should result in severe punishment, including social ostracism, job loss, civil law suit, financial ruination, etc.
2. There may not actually be a god, and even the mere suggestion that there might be one might offend those who have a deep and profound belief that there is no god. Such offence is unacceptable. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
3. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit racist. No one apart from neo-Marxist members of well-defined, protected minority groups is allowed to define what constitutes racism. Such action might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
4. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit sexist. No one apart from neo-Marxist women is allowed to define what constitutes sexism. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
5. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit homophobic. Homophobia includes any statement or behavior that might in any way be interpreted as not enjoying, celebrating, and reveling in homosexuality. It also includes any suggestion of any kind that homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, might require the revision of every English dictionary ever published, or might not be in the best interest of our society or our culture. In the end, however, no one apart from neo-Marxist homosexuals is allowed to define what constitutes homophobia. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
6. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be in conflict with the official doctrine of Global Warming. That would be blasphemous. No one apart from neo-Marxist advocates of Man Made Global Warming is allowed to define what constitutes valid evidence in this debate. In fact, only people like Al Gore are allowed to tell other people what the real evidence is and what that evidence really means. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
7. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit anti-abortion. Abortion is good. Abortion is right. Abortion could never be wrong. The right to Abortion on demand is the one and only absolute truth in all of the universe. No one apart from neo-Marxist women is allowed to define what constitutes that which is anti-abortion. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
As long as none of these basic assumptions is transgressed, any act-regardless of how evil-that a person might want to commit is perfectly reasonable and justifiable as long that person is absolutely sure that it is done for the good and righteous cause of advancing his own personal, political agenda. After all, the ends do justify the means. Every right thinking neo-Marxist person knows that. This basic concept constitutes the essence of Political Correctness in twenty-first-century America.
But, regardless of what the practitioner of neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism claims, this argument is not a Straw Man. Based upon the sources that I have already cited and upon over twenty years of close engagement with the neo-Marxists, I can say with confidence that this argument is true. The college professors who have carefully trained the neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorists have lovingly imparted all the traditional jargon of Classical Rhetoric to their students, including the traditional terms used to describe fallacies. They will attack their opponents with long lists of wonderful words that they barely understand themselves, knowing that the failed educational establishment in the USA has made it all but impossible for their opponents to have any clue what they are talking about. What they do not want others to know is that they do not know what they are talking about themselves. In fact, most of the college professors who taught this jargon to their students have no idea themselves what they are talking about.
[1] Tobin, Gary A., and Aryeh K.Weinberg. A Profile of American College Faculty. Vol. 1: Political Beliefs and Behavior. San Francisco: Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2006. i-iii; Sommers, Christina Hoff. “For More Balance on Campuses.” The Christian Science Monitor: Monday, 6 May 2002. The American Enterprise Institute. 13 August 2009. ; Horowitz, David. The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2006; Balch, Stephen H. “The Antidote to Academic Orthodoxy.” The Chronicle of Higher Education: 23 April 2004. Leadership U. 14 April 2005. 13 August 2009. . Klein, Daniel B., and Andrew Western. “Forget Stanford's cardinal red -- paint it (almost) as blue as Berkeley.” Palo Alto Weekly: 23 February 2005. Palo Alto Weekly Online. 13 August 2009. . D'Souza, Dinesh. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Free Press, 1991. The evidence of this phenomenon is clear, well-developed, and easy to find.
[2] For those not already familiar with Rope-a-Dope. The term actually has its own entry in the Oxford American Dictionary, and more concerning Ali and Rope-a-Dope can be found at .
[3] For those who want to know more about the history of Marxism and Political Correctness, I strongly recommend this article and its highly effective but manageable bibliography of sources: Rubin, Paul H. “The Assault on the First Amendment: Political Choice and Political Correctness.” The Cato Journal: Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1994. The Cato Institute. 13 August 2009. .
Moral Axioms:
Common Sense Can Die-
If You Let the Liars Kill It.
“...the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans....”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War (III.3)
“War is Hell!”
-General William Tecumseh Sherman
“Rhetoric is War!”
-Tickle
Throughout this book, the term neo-Marxist will be used to refer to all the people in contemporary western society who have adopted the propaganda practices and some or all of the political and economic principles of traditional Marxist dogma. The term New Ethos will also be used throughout to identify the ethical and quasi-religious belief system of these same people. By no means do I mean to suggest that they all have the same goals or that they all thoroughly embrace traditional Marxism. Most of them have read very little Marx and would not be able to understand him if they had. The fact is that this very large group of people has divided itself up into many different factions with very many different-sometimes conflicting-political agendas. What they all have in common is their reverence for the traditional icons of Marxist revolution and their love for Political Correctness and for the methods of Marxist propaganda. They all admire the vicious efficiency and economy of effort that those methods offer. They are in love with the fact that, while the methods are so simple that even a moron could use them, those methods do actually work. They work very well, and they work so well that well-placed neo-Marxist morons have very nearly taken over the entire civilized world while everybody else was paying them no attention. This sad reality is evidenced no where better than in higher education, the traditional ivory tower of the academy. In the case of most colleges and universities, the faculty “are overwhelmingly liberal in their political ideology, creating a strong campus political culture,” composed primarily of dedicated, faithful, anti-American, anti-capitalist, even openly Marxist professors [1]. Those advocating this leftist, socialist political ideology have taken over the management of most colleges and universities and taken over the training and education of the vast majority of public school teachers in the USA. It is also more than safe to say that this socialist political ideology is, in fact, exactly what I will continue to refer to in this book as neo-Marxism.
One of the most insidious rhetorical strategies used by the neo-Marxist propagandist is the attack on basic, common-sense moral assumptions, assumptions that the rest of the population simply take as granted, as given, in any discussion or debate between rational persons. By relentlessly attacking these basic assumptions, decade after decade, the neo-Marxists have managed to convince a large number of people that these assumptions are questionable and open for debate. They have even managed to convince themselves and many others that these assumptions are false, that they are destructive lies. There are some civilized, well-educated people who will actually believe and who will actually tell other people that there is no such thing as truth. Everything is relative. There are no wrong answers. Logic is an ugly, oppressive illusion created by the Man to repress everyone, especially women and minorities. Logic is no better than any other method of analysis. Everyone’s opinion is of equal value. There are no winners. There are no losers. Most sane people know that such ravings are foolish and stupid, but the number who do not know it and who cannot even see it is growing every day.
They have been using this tactic for so long that some people cannot even see or understand that it is happening, and it is particularly clever and extremely effective in two very important ways. Number one, it allows the neo-Marxist to cavalierly dismiss any argument based upon traditional moral assumptions. Number two, it makes it easy for him to bog down the discussion and debate with arguments about the fundamental ideals that most people accept as axiomatic. Then, the fight over fundamental assumptions goes on and on until everyone on both sides is so tired and worn out that the real issues that need to be addressed disappear, never to be dealt with. This tactic is the neo-Marxist propagandist’s equivalent of Mohammed Ali’s Rope-a-Dope strategy for the boxing ring [2]. Refuse to engage until the opponent is so tired that he actually wants to be knocked out, just so the whole thing can be over. Sad and pathetic, but very effective.
Some traditional assumptions about human nature and about the world that people live in are actually true. And, since those things are true, a person need not spend the rest of his life trying to prove that they are true before he uses them as given ideals in his arguments. Regardless of what the neo-Marxists say, one need not acknowledge their challenge to the most simple truths. By forcing people to engage in debate over the most simple truths, the truths that most people build their lives on, the neo-Marxist can completely avoid engaging people in arguments concerning the truly important issues of the day. In an attempt to make the real issues disappear from the table, the neo-Marxist tries to change the basic assumptions about truth and morality into issues of debate.
Regardless of how hard they attack them or how much they want to challenge these assumptions, no one should let them do so. If neo-Marxists refuse to give up the attack on any of these assumptions, turn the tables on the enemy. Stop the debate and force them to demonstrate to the whole world why the obvious truth in question is false or illusory. Nothing is more humiliating for an opponent than to be seen grasping for straws while he tries to explain to the world how he could possibly justify rejecting the most basic moral assumptions without a second thought, a single care, or a rational argument. Willingly acknowledge that these simple truths are at the foundation of all arguments, but never apologize for taking them as granted. Force the opponent to explain how he can take it for granted that they are false and unacceptable.
The list below is by no means comprehensive; even so, I have tried to be as thorough as possible in a work of this kind. All of the other arguments in this book are based upon these assumptions. They are always taken by me as self-evident-whether my opponents like them or not. It is not up to me to prove them to anyone. Anyone stupid enough to disagree with these Moral Axioms has the obligation to disprove them, to disprove something that most people accept without question. By doing so they will only make themselves look foolish and strengthen their opponents arguments.
The Moral Axioms That People of Reason and Faith are Allowed to Take for Granted
[Surrendering these given principles will make many of your traditional, common sense arguments impossible in the face of Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism.]
1. God exists, and God Almighty Himself created the universe we live in and everything in it. Only by his will is it sustained. This universe is the product of His Divine Providence, and the course of everything-past, present, and future-is taken into consideration as part of that Divine Providence. Being a rational person does not require that one believe in God, but believing in God does not disqualify one from logical debate. An argument that assumes the existence of God is no more irrational than an argument that assumes that God does not exist. A person may try to question the truth of an argument that assumes God exists. But, assuming that God exists, does not immediately bring into question the validity or the logic of the argument, even if the neo-Marxist attacks such an argument on that basis.
2. An atheist is never going to offer an argument that does not include the assumption that God is a figment of other people’s imaginations. That fact does not mean that I must construct arguments that only work for those who assume that there is no God. It is not my task to prove that God exists anymore than it is the atheist’s task to prove that God does not exist. It is not up to me to challenge his faith in the non-existence of God. In fact, all that I can do is offer pity to those who have no faith in or experience of God.
3. Evil is real. Evil exists. It is not a social construct. It is not an invention of Mankind, and no one made up the idea hoping to control people simple enough to believe in it. It is not an invention of the Bourgeoisie designed to keep the Proletariat in its proper place-repressed, controlled, and terrified to fight back. There are, in fact, forces in the universe, including some persons, which are filled with hatred, malice, bitterness, and self-obsessed willfulness.
4. Some human beings will substitute their own will for the will of God and for the will of any and all authority. They will also privilege their own will over that of all other human beings. This ultimate level of self obsession is the true origin of evil. It is-in fact-the definition of evil.
5. All people have Free Will to choose for themselves what they will. No person and no thing in the universe can take that Free Will away from them, and all people are responsible for their own choices and must suffer the consequences of those choices and the actions to which they lead.
6. While-for good reason-we may privilege animal life forms over vegetable life, fauna over flora, that does not mean that vegetable life is not really life. All life is sacred and must be treated with reverence, even when it must be destroyed so that other life forms may live. All that lives was given life by God Himself; all living things are His creatures in that He created them all, animal and vegetable. Never forget that there are even plants in this world that are themselves carnivores. I wonder if those plants prefer to eat vegetarians? Or, perhaps, PETA activists?
7. Every living creature possesses the inherent, unalienable right to survive, even if that creature must fight to do so, even if that creature must use deadly force to do so. Yet, some creatures will die, and some will live. Some creatures will even become food for others. These facts are unavoidable and undeniable.
8. As long as his freedom does not threaten the lives and well-being of other human beings, every human being possesses inherent, unalienable freedom, even if that human being must fight to be free, even if that human being must use deadly force to secure his freedom.
9. Some conflicts cannot be resolved without the use of physical violence. Some of those conflicts cannot be resolved without the use of deadly force.
10. Some people in the world allow themselves to focus upon all things negative, including death, destruction, and hatred. These people are evil.
11. Some of the evil people in the world will use deadly force to accomplish their own goals, and those same evil people have planned and continue to plan the death and destruction of persons whom they hate.
12. Many of the evil people with such plans are inflexible, unwilling to compromise, and not open to negotiation. There are, in fact, some people in the world who will not listen to reason and who will not respond to any amount of talk or negotiation.
13. When a person knows for a fact that evil people are planning his destruction and his murder, that person need not remain inactive until those evil people choose to attack. Self-defense does not always require one to wait for the murderer to attack first before the defender uses deadly force.
14. There are, in fact, some no win situations. Sometimes a person finds himself faced with a set of circumstances in which every course of action-including no action at all-will create a negative result or violate some code or basic principle of right and wrong. In those circumstances, a person must choose the course of action that does the least harm or that constitutes the smallest transgression of code or basic principle. This is commonly know as "choosing the lesser of two evils."
15. Knowledge is, by definition, good, and the pursuit of knowledge, learning, and wisdom is good. The pursuit of knowledge is essential to the pursuit of Truth. Worthwhile knowledge and Truth are actually the same thing.
16. Truth is real. Truth does exist. The truth is out there, and you can find it. The Pursuit of Truth is the Pursuit of God Himself, for God and Truth are the same thing.
17. Absolute truth exists, and absolute truth is the ultimate goal of Mankind and of all academic endeavors. The belief that Relativism can serve as a replacement for absolute truth is a misleading, destructive illusion. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that logic is useless and that academic endeavors are meaningless and fruitless. The Oxford American Dictionary defines absolute as “not qualified or diminished in any way; total.” The Oxford American Dictionary defines truth as the quality or state of being “in accordance with fact or reality”; being “rightly or strictly so called; genuine”; being “real or actual”; or being “accurate or exact.” The Oxford American Dictionary defines relativism as “the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.”
18. Ignorance and stupidity are-by definition-bad, and the conscious avoidance of knowledge, learning, and wisdom is evil.
19. Logic and analytical skills are unnatural and must be taught. Like language, they are not acquired by accident, and they are not instinctive.
20. Some people in the world choose to be ignorant and stupid because acquiring education and using the brains that God gave them are difficult and time-consuming. It is much easier to be lazy, ignorant, and stupid, so many people are glad to stay that way throughout their lives. The choice to be ignorant and stupid is not only the lazy, sloppy, easy choice, it is also the willing embrace of evil.
21. Equality and fairness mean equality of rights and opportunities, not equality of outcomes. The Oxford American Dictionary defines Equality as “the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.” Every citizen of the USA is a human being with the same rights and opportunities, but each and every one of them is unique in his or her gifts and talents. Everyone’s ultimate outcomes are necessarily different, and whether you call it luck, random chance, or destiny, something beyond the control of individuals or governments plays some role in determining each unique individual’s outcomes in life.
22. Equality and Uniformity are not the same. The Oxford American Dictionary defines Uniformity as the quality of “not changing in form or character; remaining the same in all cases and at all times.” Human beings are not uniform, nor should they ever be treated by their government as if they were.
23. Uniformity is evil. Treating all citizens as if they were unchanging in form or character and as if they were all the same in all cases and at all times, that would be unfair, simple-minded, and destructive. Even so, such uniformity is necessary for those who march down the road of tyranny and communism. One size that fits all rarely means anything apart from one size that fits no one.
24. Diversity actually means that it is alright to be different; that it is good to be different; and that, from differences, come strength and power. The Oxford American Dictionary defines diversity as the state of “showing a great deal of variety”; the state of being “(of two or more things) markedly different from one another.” Diversity is a powerful force for good and for progress. But, diversity does not mean that we are all the same without any regard for our differences. In fact, the opposite is true. Even so, many people and many governmental institutions act as if people are all exactly the same, and no context or ideal can ever allow for people to be treated as if they were in fact different, even if their qualitative differences are inherently obvious.
25. Merit has a place in a just society. It is not something that you are born with. It is something you earn. The Oxford American Dictionary defines merit as “the quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deserve praise or reward.” Merit was not dreamed up as an excuse for exercising prejudice and bigotry. The only kind of merit that counts is the merit someone earns. Some people will earn more than others. Some will be satisfied to earn less than others. Some are better than others, and some are actually best.
26. Some answers are actually wrong; while some answers are actually right, actually true. In reality, everything is not-after all-relative.
Neo-Marxists will never pass up an opportunity to attack these basic, traditional moral assumptions, and they will always refuse to engage any arguments based upon them. Yet, the truth is neo-Marxists have their own set of cherished beliefs that they never stop to question and about which they will suffer no discussion or debate. In fact, the absolute acceptance of those cherished beliefs constitutes their one and only measure of a person’s intellectual ability. By definition, the people who agree with their cherished beliefs are brilliant, god-like geniuses who walk the Earth for the benefit of all mankind. By definition, those people who do not blindly accept their cherished beliefs are idiots, morons, the lowest form of sentient life known to Mankind. That is the full extent of the neo-Marxist’s analytical process. Nothing more complex or sophisticated is ever really necessary.
As with the list above, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive or comprehensive. These are just a few of the possibilities. Just remember that no one has any more responsibility to accept these assumptions than does the neo-Marxist to accept traditional moral values. Also, remember that this writer does NOT embrace these ideals. These are the ones that I have rejected. In fact, I try to violate these principles as frequently as possible just to irritate all the closed-minded neo-Marxists in my life.
The Assumptions of Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism [3]
1. Offending someone enough to cause that person to experience a powerful emotional response is never acceptable and is one of the most heinous things a human being can do. It is especially important to respect the cherished beliefs of the New Ethos, the standards adopted by those who have rejected traditional moral axioms and embraced the mechanism of Political Correctness. To offend the sensibilities of the neo-Marxist is taboo, is absolutely verboten. To do so can and should result in severe punishment, including social ostracism, job loss, civil law suit, financial ruination, etc.
2. There may not actually be a god, and even the mere suggestion that there might be one might offend those who have a deep and profound belief that there is no god. Such offence is unacceptable. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
3. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit racist. No one apart from neo-Marxist members of well-defined, protected minority groups is allowed to define what constitutes racism. Such action might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
4. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit sexist. No one apart from neo-Marxist women is allowed to define what constitutes sexism. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
5. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit homophobic. Homophobia includes any statement or behavior that might in any way be interpreted as not enjoying, celebrating, and reveling in homosexuality. It also includes any suggestion of any kind that homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, might require the revision of every English dictionary ever published, or might not be in the best interest of our society or our culture. In the end, however, no one apart from neo-Marxist homosexuals is allowed to define what constitutes homophobia. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
6. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be in conflict with the official doctrine of Global Warming. That would be blasphemous. No one apart from neo-Marxist advocates of Man Made Global Warming is allowed to define what constitutes valid evidence in this debate. In fact, only people like Al Gore are allowed to tell other people what the real evidence is and what that evidence really means. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
7. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on Earth to be the least bit anti-abortion. Abortion is good. Abortion is right. Abortion could never be wrong. The right to Abortion on demand is the one and only absolute truth in all of the universe. No one apart from neo-Marxist women is allowed to define what constitutes that which is anti-abortion. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.
As long as none of these basic assumptions is transgressed, any act-regardless of how evil-that a person might want to commit is perfectly reasonable and justifiable as long that person is absolutely sure that it is done for the good and righteous cause of advancing his own personal, political agenda. After all, the ends do justify the means. Every right thinking neo-Marxist person knows that. This basic concept constitutes the essence of Political Correctness in twenty-first-century America.
But, regardless of what the practitioner of neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism claims, this argument is not a Straw Man. Based upon the sources that I have already cited and upon over twenty years of close engagement with the neo-Marxists, I can say with confidence that this argument is true. The college professors who have carefully trained the neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorists have lovingly imparted all the traditional jargon of Classical Rhetoric to their students, including the traditional terms used to describe fallacies. They will attack their opponents with long lists of wonderful words that they barely understand themselves, knowing that the failed educational establishment in the USA has made it all but impossible for their opponents to have any clue what they are talking about. What they do not want others to know is that they do not know what they are talking about themselves. In fact, most of the college professors who taught this jargon to their students have no idea themselves what they are talking about.
[1] Tobin, Gary A., and Aryeh K.Weinberg. A Profile of American College Faculty. Vol. 1: Political Beliefs and Behavior. San Francisco: Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2006. i-iii; Sommers, Christina Hoff. “For More Balance on Campuses.” The Christian Science Monitor: Monday, 6 May 2002. The American Enterprise Institute. 13 August 2009. ; Horowitz, David. The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2006; Balch, Stephen H. “The Antidote to Academic Orthodoxy.” The Chronicle of Higher Education: 23 April 2004. Leadership U. 14 April 2005. 13 August 2009. . Klein, Daniel B., and Andrew Western. “Forget Stanford's cardinal red -- paint it (almost) as blue as Berkeley.” Palo Alto Weekly: 23 February 2005. Palo Alto Weekly Online. 13 August 2009. . D'Souza, Dinesh. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Free Press, 1991. The evidence of this phenomenon is clear, well-developed, and easy to find.
[2] For those not already familiar with Rope-a-Dope. The term actually has its own entry in the Oxford American Dictionary, and more concerning Ali and Rope-a-Dope can be found at .
[3] For those who want to know more about the history of Marxism and Political Correctness, I strongly recommend this article and its highly effective but manageable bibliography of sources: Rubin, Paul H. “The Assault on the First Amendment: Political Choice and Political Correctness.” The Cato Journal: Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1994. The Cato Institute. 13 August 2009. .