Imagine No Right or Wrong

Much has been said from the starboard side of the bloggesphere on the lack of awareness college students have about the reality of the world today – in particular, the Islamist threat. The liberal left has infiltrated the educational system in this country and has produced a generation of politically correct multiculturalists unable to think logically and rationally. The prime reason is that a liberal feels and a conservative thinks. So the primary response from a liberal is always an emotional one based on ‘feeling’ not logic.

Awhile back, I had a chance to actually see the mechanisms of the modern college students’ mind as it wrestled with the contradictions between reality and multiculturalism. I had the usual discussion with her as the anti-Islamists bloggers and commentators do in expressing their opinion and she stood by her multicultural belief and saw me only as a bigot for condemning all Muslims for the actions of a few radicals. I tried to explain to her that the ‘few’ are many more than she thinks and, in my opinion, the vast number of Muslims in the world may not agree with the methods of the violent jihadists but do agree with their objectives. I gave her several examples of the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used by the non-violent jihadists today in order to enlighten her to the threat to our civilization. Even supposed 'moderate' Muslims are at fault because there really is no moderate Muslims only acquiescent ones and they will suffer the same fate as the acquiescent Germans, Italians and Japanese did in WW II.

The depth of her misunderstanding, or blindness to reality, came when I tried to use an example of how moderate Muslims agree with the tenants and objectives of their belief system by their reaction to the Mohammed cartoon controversy. I thought for sure she would see this as a crystal clear example of how tens of thousands of moderate Muslims around the world rioted and killed over something as silly as a dozen cartoons.

Didn’t this prove that a very large number of Muslims can not, or will not, live in a 21^st century dominated by free cultures? Her response was quit enlightening. She said people riot over silly things all the time. Drunken students sometime riot after football games at her college if their team loses. The behavior of the rioting students and the rioting Muslims were equivalent. They both were upset for whatever reason. And though she did not condone the rioting of either party, she understood their anger. Their reaction was equivalent.

When I asked her if the rioting students at her college burned down the opposing team’s stadium, demanded that the opposing college apologize for their win, the football coach fired and death threats put out on the opposing players, and that the rioting Muslims were demanding that free societies self-censor themselves and bury the concept of freedom of the press and free speech - she just walked away.

This incident only reinforced my belief that we will never convince the appeasers and apologist of the Islamist threat and even when it becomes crystal clear that they intend to kill even them, the majority will respond with self-preservation - but will not like it.

Why?

Because they will always, ALWAYS, hold the belief that we did not do enough, to do whatever, to prevent the conflagration that forced them into a survival mode.

Case in point. The America First Committee in the 1930s.

The America First Committee (AFC) was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 members, it was likely the largest anti-war organization in American history.

On December 11, 1941 the America First Committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:

“Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained...”

Now that’s ballsy.

Their secular belief of multiculturalism is as much a religion as our traditional ones. But their belief system fails on another count. They can not accept the concept of right and wrong and good or evil. They live in a world of relativity where every belief system is morally equivalent. This belief makes them impotent when faced with pure evil or a culture that does not respect any of the traditions of a freedom loving society where human rights and personal freedom trumps theocratic law.

So when they are eventually faced with the reality of self-preservation, they do not accept the fact that we are right and the enemy is wrong. They merely believe that if we win, it is because our civilization was stronger, harsher and more barbaric than the enemy. Many on the Left still debate the use of the atomic bomb on Japan believing it was an inhuman act that we should apologize for.

Like all enemies to democracies in the past, the enemy today is an ideology in this clash of civilizations and that ideology, not terrorism, is to be defeated wherever it’s found. To the appeasers and apologists of this ideology and secular faith of multiculturalists, the final victory does not affirm anything. Just that we, if we win, are better at killing the enemy than he is of us. Not that our ideology is better than theirs and should be destroyed based on universal human values, but that we won because we were the most brutal. If that was the case, we would have kept Japan and Germany in the primitive state we reduced their countries to. But we didn’t. Why? The Allied leaders knew that the war was not against a nation but against an ideology that had hijacked those nations. Because we fought to defeat an ideology that had hijacked their culture and once the ideology was defeated and outlawed and it’s supporters jailed, we rebuilt their nations.

You can’t win an argument with a multiculturalist based on the higher concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. They will twist and turn words to mean something else or accuse you of seeing the world only in black and white.

But I have a solution.

Let’s not begin by arguing higher values. Let’s talk about the basics. Let’s build an argument that pulls morals, values, good, evil, and religious beliefs out of the equation. That is, let’s argue a case in a language the Left, or Progressives as they like to known, can understand - a secular language. Let’s build an argument that affirms something and build it on science. And one of the very basic laws of science is the three laws of thermodynamics – or the laws of entropy.

Without getting technical, the three laws are:

1. You can’t win
2. You can’t break even
3. You can’t leave the game

But there is another side to the universe that works against entropy and that’s’ syntropy. Syntropy was a word invented by Buckminster Fuller and it is the direct opposite of entropy. While entropy runs things down, syntropy build things up. The main driver of syntropy is life – living systems – which contests the entropy of the physical world by creating order and designs of ever more advantageous and orderly patterns for growth. That which supports growth is syntropic. That which supports destruction is entropic. Those beliefs and actions that are advantageous to the advancement of life are syntropic. Those that are not are entropic. That which creates environments for creativity like personal freedom is syntropic. That which stunts personal freedom is entropic. Syntropy is good for human beings. Entropy is not. What’s right for entropy is wrong for syntropy.

Or to quote Lazarus Long, that long-lived character in Robert Heinlein’s book Time Enough for Love.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

The argument to use against the relativists of multiculturalism is that everything that stunts the expression of free thought and creativity should be fought against. This includes personal freedoms, equality, and the right to practice ones beliefs as long as it does not restrict the freedoms of others.

That’s an argument that the Progressives can not ignore.