Neoliberalism. It is a rather obscure-sounding term with a somewhat nebulous meaning. It's anonymity and vagueness shroud it in mystery. And yet, it is the very ideology at the root of most, if not all, of the modern world's problems.
So what is it, exactly? It is best defined as a dogmatic belief in the inherent superiority and supremacy of unfettered free markets and privatization (and commodification) of nearly every single thing in the universe. Inequality, however extreme, and even greed itself is recast as virtuous. The rich and the poor deserve their lot in life, because reasons. Poverty is in fact a feature, not a bug. People are just objects to be used, as are animals and Mother Nature herself. Citizens are reduced to mere consumers and wage-serfs, if not full-blown slaves. And like the robber barons of old, today's high priests of neoliberalism are totally fine with robbing from the poor, giving to the rich, and torpedoing what's left of the middle class. The only difference is that nowadays they typically do it with a smile and a veneer of pseudo-progressivism, while laughing all the way to the bank.
Neoliberalism's warped and twisted code of pseudo-ethics harbors a massive, gaping void that is essentially a moral black hole, since this ideology lacks a truly moral and spiritual component underneath it all. Its entire foundation is shaky, empty and morally bankrupt, totally rotten to the core. And yet, it has such mass appeal on both the (pseudo-)left and right of the political spectrum that it transcends that very spectrum. And while neoliberalism is clearly the darling brainchild of patriarchy, it is such a wily and devious shapeshifter that it even transcends patriarchy itself as well.
From Reagan to the Clintons, Thatcher to Blair, Milton Friedman to Thomas Friedman, Greenspan to Powell, Facebook to ExxonMobil, Purdue University to Perdue Chicken to Purdue Pharma, Trump to Trudeau, and Boris all the way to Natasha, it seems like no mainstream or pseudo-alternative politician, ideologue, technocrat, maven, or tycoon has been able to avoid being infected by neoliberalism to one degree or another, and sucked into its lifeless, soulless abyss.
(Trump, with the notable exception of opposing some of the "free trade" component of neoliberalism, otherwise supports essentially all of the rest of their evil and demonic agenda in practice, his disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. And ALL neoliberals, Trump included, are largely anti-union in practice, if not also in theory as well.)
Though secular in nature, neoliberalism has all of the zeal of a religion, even a fundamentalist one. And its dogmas have basically become the new orthodoxy from about 1980 onwards. And we can thus conclude that neoliberalism is essentially the religion of the world, the flesh, and the devil, filling the voids left by the implosion of the mainstream patriarchal religions. One can even call it a cult as well.
In Christian theology, the "world, flesh, and devil" have traditionally been considered the three primary enemies of the soul, as a sort of "unholy trinity". Now, I believe that there is some nuance to this in that the world is only evil because of who rules it (i.e. the devil who works through men, particularly the oligarchs and their sycophantic lackeys), and the flesh is only evil when we choose to make it that way, since matter is essentially just a slowed-down form of spirit. Neither of these first two are inherently evil in themselves. But under the current regime of patriarchy, living exclusively for these two is believed to ultimately lead to the third member, the devil. Or wetiko, if you prefer. Whatever it is, it is pure evil energy that cannot ever be redeemed. And neoliberalism, in its sheer vileness, vainglory, and wanton idolatry of money and worldly power above all else, effectively worships all three members of this unholy trinity.
The rise of selected flavors of Christian (and other religious) fundamentalism since the 1980s has not stemmed the tide of neoliberalism, and the two increasingly seem to be joined at the hip nowadays. And while patriarchy is currently in its death throes as we speak, the implosion of patriarchy and patriarchal religion is clearly non-linear, erratic, and chaotic.
On Ending the World's Longest War: the 7000+ Year Battle of the Sexes. By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson). (Blog formerly known as "The Chalice and the Flame")
Monday, September 30, 2019
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Rasa Von Werder Is Back With A New, Women-Only Religion
In case you missed it, the legendary Guru Rasa von Werder is back with her website "Embodiment of God" having recently been updated for the first time in a while. The latest updates to this side are essentially the genesis of Rasa’s new religion for Women only. No offense, fellas, but it really has to be this way. And besides, there are plenty of older posts and sections on that very same site designed just for you, that you should check out, and be sure to share far and wide.
Readers, please share it far and wide. Also don't forget to check out Rasa’s (and William's) new/old blog as well, along with William's own new blog. And please share those as well.
NOTE: This blog, The Chalice and the Flame, is NOT written by or directly affiliated with either Rasa or William, and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of mine, or vice-versa. Nor is it affiliated with Riane Eisler, who wrote a book with a similar name to this blog, The Chalice and the Blade. And for all third-party sites, caveat lector.
Readers, please share it far and wide. Also don't forget to check out Rasa’s (and William's) new/old blog as well, along with William's own new blog. And please share those as well.
NOTE: This blog, The Chalice and the Flame, is NOT written by or directly affiliated with either Rasa or William, and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of mine, or vice-versa. Nor is it affiliated with Riane Eisler, who wrote a book with a similar name to this blog, The Chalice and the Blade. And for all third-party sites, caveat lector.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Against Moral Relativism
One thing I have noticed among various schools of thought, both inside and out of the Matriarchy movement, is the concept of moral relativism (also known as ethical relativism or cultural relativism). That is, the idea that there is no objective truth in morality, period. And while on the surface it may sound enlightened and progressive, please be advised that it is actually a very dangerous slippery slope towards egoism, amorality and moral nihilism. And the logical conclusion to such a dubious moral theory turns out to be anything but enlightened and progressive.
In his famous essay, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", the late secular progressive philosopher James Rachels does an excellent job thoroughly debunking the specious arguments that underlie moral relativism. Scratch that, he debones, slices, dices, and juliennes such arguments, and then fully lays waste to their remains. And most notably of all, he does it all from a secular progressive perspective.
In a nutshell, the conclusion that there is no objective truth in morality at all (itself an absolute statement, ironically) does NOT follow logically from the premise that there are differences in moral codes between various cultures and time periods. And if one were to attempt to make a valid argument justifying such a specious conclusion, we would also have to essentially tolerate not only various horrific evils because "culture", but also intolerance itself as well. Nothing at all enlightened or progressive about that. So much for relativism being a philosophy of tolerance and kindness.
In another chapter of his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, having already debunked moral relativism, he also then debunks the closely related idea of moral subjectivism in similar fashion. This idea basically says that morality (right vs. wrong, good vs. evil) is merely a matter of opinion, again not objective. And in essentially the same way that relativism fails as a moral theory, so too does subjectivism as well.
This is not to say that moral absolutism (such as the views of Immanuel Kant) is necessarily correct either. We know that numerous gray areas do exist, of course, and both relativism/subjectivism and absolutism can thus be seen as two sides of the same fundamentally flawed coin. Thus objectivism (with a lowercase "o", to distinguish it from the egoistic philosophy of Ayn Rand) is essentially the way to go.
So all progressives, leftists, feminists and/or matriarchists reading this, take note. You really do NOT want to cede the moral high ground to the opposition, lest you fall into quicksand and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
In his famous essay, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", the late secular progressive philosopher James Rachels does an excellent job thoroughly debunking the specious arguments that underlie moral relativism. Scratch that, he debones, slices, dices, and juliennes such arguments, and then fully lays waste to their remains. And most notably of all, he does it all from a secular progressive perspective.
In a nutshell, the conclusion that there is no objective truth in morality at all (itself an absolute statement, ironically) does NOT follow logically from the premise that there are differences in moral codes between various cultures and time periods. And if one were to attempt to make a valid argument justifying such a specious conclusion, we would also have to essentially tolerate not only various horrific evils because "culture", but also intolerance itself as well. Nothing at all enlightened or progressive about that. So much for relativism being a philosophy of tolerance and kindness.
In another chapter of his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, having already debunked moral relativism, he also then debunks the closely related idea of moral subjectivism in similar fashion. This idea basically says that morality (right vs. wrong, good vs. evil) is merely a matter of opinion, again not objective. And in essentially the same way that relativism fails as a moral theory, so too does subjectivism as well.
This is not to say that moral absolutism (such as the views of Immanuel Kant) is necessarily correct either. We know that numerous gray areas do exist, of course, and both relativism/subjectivism and absolutism can thus be seen as two sides of the same fundamentally flawed coin. Thus objectivism (with a lowercase "o", to distinguish it from the egoistic philosophy of Ayn Rand) is essentially the way to go.
So all progressives, leftists, feminists and/or matriarchists reading this, take note. You really do NOT want to cede the moral high ground to the opposition, lest you fall into quicksand and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Rasa Von Werder's Website Is Back
The legendary Guru Rasa von Werder is back with her website "Embodiment of God" having now been updated for the first time in a while. The latest updates to this side are essentially the genesis of Rasa’s new religion for Women only. No offense, fellas, but it really has to be this way. And besides, there are plenty of older posts and sections on that same site designed just for you, that you should check out.
Readers, please share it far and wide. Also don't forget to check out Rasa’s (and William's) new/old blog as well, along with William's own new blog. And please share those as well.
Readers, please share it far and wide. Also don't forget to check out Rasa’s (and William's) new/old blog as well, along with William's own new blog. And please share those as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)