Skip to main content

The Dominant Religion of Nothing

The Democrats do: they have Nothing. To believe in Nothing in the present-day manner is to turn the denial of goods that transcend will and desire into a philosophy of life, and even into what amounts to a religion. At bottom there’s no good or bad, that nihilistic view tells us—there is just people doing stuff they feel like doing and trying to get stuff they want. That’s what life is about, so the point of law and morality is to help people do and get those things, as much and as equally as possible.

It is that view, the religion of Nothing, that is now established among us. All views to the contrary are considered hateful and divisive (that is, blasphemous and heretical), so if you have doubts you have to keep quiet about big issues, like what makes life good, and confine your comments to subordinate matters, like success considered purely as such.

The authority of that view entitles judges to rewrite the laws, and requires every Democratic politician to assert the supremacy of Will and Technology (a.k.a. Choice and Change) over natural law and human life. The latter principles tell us that some things have value whether we like it or not, and such principles have to be kept out of public life. They’re at odds with the Supreme Court’s insistence in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that concepts “of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” must be strictly individual and self-defined.

As in the case of the Republicans, individual Democrats have their own beliefs, which are whatever they may be, and their private lives are normally better than their public commitments. There are sincere Christians and devoted family members in both parties. Nonetheless, there is a difference: by and large, the statements and actions of leading Democrats show that they genuinely believe in their cause. They have a public religion, they’re forthright about what it is, they’ll take risks and make sacrifices to advance it (as Obamacare shows), and they don’t like, don’t respect, don’t understand, and won’t compromise with those who reject it. Resistance is bigotry, in their view, so it has no legitimate place in public life.

Leading Democrats are of course not alone in their faith commitments and their aversion to those who reject them. An established religion has to be accepted by social leaders generally, and the religion of Nothing is actively promoted by the academics and media figures who define what is considered rational and respectable among us. They have good reason to favor it, since it denies the authority of principles higher than the value-free technical expertise and manipulative skill such people stand for. It says that they are truly our intellectual leaders—the clergy and preachers of our New Jerusalem—and there is no one who could outrank them even in principle.

The bureaucrats and businessmen who form the operational branch of our governing class go along with the religion of Nothing as well. They lack the imagination to conceive an alternative, and the religion helps get rid of family, cultural, and religious considerations that complicate economic and organizational decisions. Selling products and dealing with human resources become easier if family and community ties are suppressed so we all become interchangeable consumers and careerists.

Social conservatism still has a following, but it’s weak because it’s almost purely populist. Nobody who runs things at the upper levels has much sympathy for family, community, cultural, or religious institutions or the habits, attitudes, and beliefs that support them. Why should the higher-ups favor authorities and ways of doing things that compete with them and the institutions they control? The Republicans might give traditional values lip service, but they don’t make much of a case for them and drop their support long before push comes to shove. The result is that social conservatism is reactive, it can’t make its case, and it can’t defend itself against propaganda and the deconstruction of the American people through the disintegration of family and cultural ties. - James Kalb

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Feiende flott trapp i en fart

Når de som skulle ha støttet har sviktet, er det godt å vite at ikke Wikimedia-fellesskapet har det. Rørende er det hvordan de oppretter mappesystemer over bildene mine fra Holmstadenga og Grythengen og andre steder, og ellers legger dem i alle relevante mapper. Dette er mye jobb, og man føler stor takknemlighet over å bli tatt slik på alvor av mennesker man ikke kjenner.
Virkelig inspirerende er det, og dette oppmuntrer til å ta mange flere bilder fra grenda mi. Den dagen Holmstadengen har falt ned og blitt til jord, og Grythengen er solgt til fremmede fordi jeg ikke orket mer av all motstand og fiendskap, tipper jeg noen omsider vil vite å verdsette min innsats.

Riktig fint ville det vært hvis man også fikk inn noen fotografier som er over 70 år gamle, som er utløpsdatoen for åndsverk i Norge.

Raknehaugen og våre slektsgårder

På Toten råder omtrent samme grad av toleranse som under Taliban i Afghanistan, hvor enhver som ikke underkaster seg drømmen om Subeksurbania* er en kjetter og må steines eller utstøtes av det gode selskap. F.eks. er det blasfemi å hevde at slektsgårdene er våre fedrealtre og skal få ligge i fred i kulturlandskapet, lik gravhaugene. Man ribber ikke fedrealtrene og plyndrer ikke gravhaugene, fordi da mister de sin funksjon og sitt innhold!
Grunnen til at det er slik skyldes et dypt hat til vår rurale arv, fordi denne ikke kan forenes med de subeksurbane idealer. Trist, men sant😰


*Så langt jeg kan se etter søk på flere søkemotorer er begrepet Subeksurbania eller Subexurbania ikke tidligere benyttet, og må derfor anses som en ny betegnelse eller et nytt ord. Ordet Subexurbania eller Subeksurbania, motsatsen av Narnia, ble skapt i mitt hode søndag 17. juni 2018, og første gang benyttet i denne tekst 19. juni 2018.

En anti-autonom og anti-rural kultur

Hva er dette? Ja, det lurer jeg jammen på. Teknisk sett er det vel et pumpehus, men det er også noe langt mer, noe jeg ikke fatter. Aldri har jeg følt på slik en ondskap som hos dette huset, så det må være et ondskapens hus, kanskje et åndenes hus? Bor det en Nazgûl der inne? I alle fall føles det slik, som om her holder til en ondskapens vokter, da innvollene vrenges når man nærmer seg det. Dette er ondskap. Saurons øye. Et tempel for Servoglobus.

Trist var det at dette her skulle erstatte velkomstsportalen for grenda til Totenåsens apostel, grenda hvor reformasjonen slo ut i all sin prakt. Johan Solhaug skrev i sine memoarer at det var en mørk tid i Øverskreien før Magnus J. Dahl kom vandrende over åsen. Men nå har et annet mørke inntatt denne grenda, en mørk ondskap jeg aldri tidligere har erfart noe annet sted i verden. Jeg fatter ikke hva det er, bare at det er ren ondskap som må bekjempes med nebb og klør, og de som ikke er med meg er mot meg.

Oppe på tunet er det som om to kref…