Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,186 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 14921

Posts: 231

My Comments: 856

User Comments: 1391

Photos: 3

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 3

Points: 4394

Last Online: 47 minutes ago




How the social-political Right has abetted the Left's advance, and how a reverse may be made to occur

Added: Thursday, July 2nd 2020 at 8:50pm by tjdonegan

Erstwhile the workplace was apolitical because the culture was apolitical; society's moral norms were not under attack; rather they were ubiquitously promoted. Shortly after leaving the U.S. Navy (early 1980's) John Belushi's wife (widow?) was on Phil Donahue's show where she explained that the comedies on television then, were not as funny as those of the past (e.g., Green Acres, Beverly Hillbilly's, I Love Lucy etc...), but she claimed that they were better because "they contained social messages." Those messages were iconoclastic utterances (i.e., utterances that ridiculed accepted norms) by iconoclasts (an iconoclast is one that attacks icons i.e., that which is – generally - revered); they led those that had not yet been imbued with the morally poisonous ideas animating the University into ubiquitous dialogues that challenged accepted moral norms; thosediscussionswerenearlyuniversallytolerated/accepted,  those were the discussions which accelerated the acceptance of universal hedonism... The only blow-back – back then, to my knowledge – were radio-Ministers who were themselves subjected to iconoclasm…

The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that American citizens may speak their minds and practice their faith as they so choose. That said, discussing religion and politics is nearly ubiquitously discouraged, although the 1st speech free-speech clause was specifically concerned with protecting political and religious speech... Although I cannot claim that the effort to limit public speech regarding religion, politics and morality was a coordinated effort [beginning at least 50 years ago]; I can say - anecdotally (meaning that I've been in numerous conversations - going back over 40 years - both in the U. S. Military, in private sector businesses, and in Government...) that most people - in the past - suggesting such conversations were inappropriate made such suggestions only after the iconoclastic (i.e., the advocacy for social change) position was being unveiled asinimical to wholesome  relations. And - generally, but again anecdotally - my experience has been to see social-'conservatives' obey/comply with the wishes of their social-advocacy opponents. Moreover, often those that – back-in-the-day –  would seek to alert management regarding what they felt to be inappropriate speech/behavior [e.g., a rational defense of free-speech] seemed to considered them selves social-political Right; these people helped to create an environ that punishes/sanctions speech critical of dystopian advocacies of the social-political Left (such criticism is nearly viewed universally as taboo), while speech characterizing those of the social-political Right as a collection of sundry bigotries is tacitly applauded often by ostensible pundits and politicians representing the social-political Right…?    

Add to this, so often many on the social-political Right – when culture discussions and/or dialogues are allowed to take place those on the Right attempt to placate their Leftist opponent by crediting for some minor point, and this generally leads to avoiding the fundamental points of disagreement which are easily articulated viz: those on the Right hold reality to be objectively ordered, that morality too is objective and thus universal, reality intelligently ordered by God, and that the moral law imposes restrictions upon what a human may do, while commanding things humans must do, and avoid doing. Leftist – knowingly, or otherwise - reject all of that the social-political Right embrace! Obtaining power and maintaining power is what ultimately matters! With power, on can compel others to act contrary to their wills, and punish those severely – even by murder – those that arenon-compliant.Instead attempting  to  make nice with Leftist, or dismissing Leftists by calling them socialist/communists/Leftists, those on the social-political Right should incessantly articulate the fundamental beliefs of Leftists – making those Leftists defend or repudiate those beliefs/advocacies… If such practice were to become omnipresent/widespread the Leftists positions would organically (because when juxtaposed with objective reality – the predicate of what is rational – ridicule for such nonsense is reflex…) become the target of iconoclasm and iconoclasts...

Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, advocates of trans-valuing (Nietzsche’s term for reversing what is held to be ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ viz: ‘Everything which was formerly held to be good, must now be considered evil, and everything which was formerly considered evil will now be held as good…’) Christendom (Western Culture) must avoid dialectical discussions with their intellectual opponents; instead opponents should be characterized, defamed and shouted down…

Those on the social-political Right – we repeat – should make clear the fundamental differences between themselves and the Left e.g., if Nancy Pelosi (or any Leftists/Democrat) invokes “inalienable Rights” they should be loudly rebuked for contradicting their principles! If they invoke the rule-of-law ditto! If they utter ‘morality’ or civil-Right [Note the advance of ‘civil-rights’ – from the Roe vs. Wade decision onward has logically nullified inalienable  rights, thus reducing ‘civil-rights’ and any other right one may think they - as humans, or citizens of the USA - possess to privileges…] vis-à-vis a Leftist advocacy, or ‘integrity’ vis-à-vis a Leftist personage (Leftists tacitly reject God, therefore they cannot have integrity!) again they should loudly be rebuked for contradictions!

The Left has always and incessantly feigned to seek a common-ground with its moral antipode so as to advance in half-measures – if such is necessary – their advocacies; it is time those on the social-political Right to realize that a common ground is not possible (the inevitable outcome of compromising and arc of slightest bend with a strait line destroys the line while preserving the arc...), but by, and through, a clear delineation of principles of the Right vs. the Left most of those currently confused that drift Left - because sentiment is generally opposed to the moral law (exception: Sentiments which have been habitually schooled to conform to the  moral law i.e., the dictates of dispassionate reason...) - will actively join the social-political Right because they are made to  understand the dichotomy of Right and Left principally viz: the advocates-of-the-good (social-political Right) andtheadvocates-of-evil (the social-political Left)…

Thomas J. Donegan


User Comments

I think it's more complicated that Left and Right issues. Christianity is a dying religion. They can't even decide on what color Christ should be or what etnicity. There should never have been a religion developed on a simple principle of loving thy neighbor as thyself. What happened after that were the emergence of monetized cults and they accumulated lot's of money in the process.

Hello, Writer!

This missive did not addressed the philosophical reason as to why the social-political Left has surmounted the social-political Right; rather what was addressed was how those that should have resisted the active and semi-organized assault upon the under girding principles upon which Western culture rose; what generally has happened, has been those ostensibly on the 'Right' 'held-the-door-open for the-marauders...' 

Christianity is not Christendom; Christendom is the rational [the only rational worldview ever to - historically - grace the earth; pre-history...????] cultural worldview fashioned in the middle-ages; the culture emerged as a consequence - predominantly - as a consequence of the writing of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), particularly the Summa Contra-Gentiles, and the Summa Theologia [His only purely philosophical treatise: On Being and Essence is the presupposition of knowledge; and is the dogmatic - albeit unacknowledged - ground of the working practice of every scientific discipline...]; Christendom is the synthesis of Greek, Hebrew and Roman cultures effected by rendering each of those cultures amenable/consonant to Christianity... It was that philosophical pruning which led to the divisions within the Catholic Church (Note this is extreme simplification...) resulting in the Sola Scriptura advocacy of Martin Luther and sundry other denominational Christian religions...

Christianity is not merely a religion predicated upon "loving thy neighbor as thyself." That would be an articulation of the second of the 2 Great Commandments; the first is: 'One should Lord thy God with all of thy heart, mind, soul and strength.' Jesus asserts the entire Law and the Prophets may be derived from those Commandments (one must rationally contemplate his words to understand that they are in fact true!)...

Regarding cults: One must be charitable in understanding the ubiquity of human weakness; each of us desires to be God (that is the sin of the Fall; we note the redundancy of our expression...) and desire to bend existence to our will; those - so ordered - often seek to reduce religion to self, themselves... Humility [i.e., the incessant willing to know and live the truth] is that virtue that understands the most evil action flows from the unregulated human soul (moral virtue are those regulations by which is necessary to order oneself so as to bring one's soul to 'heel.'). When one loves (Love - the act by which one wills to reconcile the beloved to the Will of God) one comes to understand they must subordinate one's desires to the truth in order that one may seek to bring the beloved into accord with the 'good' i.e., the will of God; this then provides the individual with an impetus for self-immolation, such a disposition would never be beguiled by things cultish...

Cordially, tjd

I don't humans desire to be God. I don't know why they will want such a burden when they're not capable of solving the issues of the day. I am happy I get the opportunity to experience life on my terms until I die. I won't want to live it under any other person's terms or under any religious beliefs terms. 

Hi, Writer!

Those that reject the moral law - for whatever specious reason - desire to be God; Nietzsche's assertion that the ubermenschean is:"beyond good and evil" is an encapslation of what must animate those that reject - consciously, or otherwise - objective moral principles which attend to to Nature... Your words Writer are very much in accord with those of the ubermenschean; you - as an individual may limit your conduct because irrespective of what you may consciously believe - embrace an intuition of the moral law; such intuitions are common! That said, others are rabidly wicked (i.e., Satanic) creatures e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama 'prowling the earth seeking to devour souls'...

Cordially, tjd   

I don't see myself as superhuman like the Ubermensch. I just live my life to the best of my ability 24 hours at a time trying to accomplish the things I set as my goal. 

Hi, Writer!

Übermenschian are not superhuman; the übermensch rejects conventional, or accepted moral norms and meaning.

 I write of übermenschian in two ways those which consciously embrace the Nietzschean paradigm of reality whose meaning is imposed by the Will-of-the-Able, and those that that in the wake of the culturally destructive forces unleashed by those Übermenschian live their lives as if at a smorgasbord i.e., the miens that possess them from their youths (i.e., the dispositions that they received from interactions with family, friends, relatives and the culture) are synthesized with the ongoing cultural decay, so that they have remnants of erstwhile moral human qualities restraining cultural cues to ribald narcissism…

Cordially, tjd

I think the true gift of life is to live it to the fullest, but know that their are consequences for all our actions and we get to feel the results of our actions play out within us instantaneously. It gives us a chance to make amends.

Post A Comment