Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Just imagine
if the races were switched in this Superbowl ad.
First of all, a black woman gets to hit a black man in his home, gets a man to hide from her and then gets to stick soap in his mouth. Imagine if the genders were switched. (And once you look for it, the massive amount of times that we see women trying to change or control the behavior of males is amazing.)
Then two blacks run away, leaving a blonde white woman on the ground after the black woman has assaulted her.
The background music directs us to experience this as amusing and cute.
Especially considering the demographics of crime in the USA,
(black on white crime and black crime in general vastly
out of proportion to share of population, which we are not supposed
to notice and if we do, we must immediately assume it is due to
white racism thru the police, courts, laws or economic oppression...)
this stuff is bad, very bad, not funny.
Liberalism teaches the dominant group either to blind itself to what is happening or to acquiesce in its destruction by feeling too highminded to see it for what it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's almost as if the ad dares you to see what you are seeing: female on male violence and black on white violence. But if you see it...you are sexist and racist. Cultural psychosis.
Hasn't authority always done precisely this? Admittedly, "liberal" authority is rather a contradiction, but subtlety in obedience was required in Christianity too. We were to be intimidated into obedience by fear of everlasting gtorture in hell, but we weren't to worship God as a tyrant or the saints as tyrannical flunkies of a tyrant, sc that God any commandment from God is ipso facto right; no God's rule is royal, and His commandments have intrinsic rightness.
Even the directive "Question Authority!" clearly meant not the proper authority (in this case leftwing or liberal) but the shadow authority (conservative morals, conservative Christianity, capitalist economic rationales).
Even if objective understanding or at least objective description is possible, it can occur only by some motive in the describer or noticer. Someone who notices and then describes in a way that is independent of authority has an evil attitude or motive. QED
This is not gainsaid by the reality that proper, not-shadow, authority in our time wishes to be deem'd an encourager of independence and "critical thinking." Everyone knows this. Similarly, the God who intimidated by fear of everlasting torture in hell wasn't to be deem'd a tyrant who would be obey'd right or unright, but a royal ruler whose decrees are intrinsically right. Communist schools, fellow-travellers' summer camps for children also taught critical thinking -- critical of capitalist ideology, not critical of the authorities of communism, the authorities who imposed curriculum at fellow-travellers' summer camps. Whatever the Central Committee declares is true and right, but intrinsically: the declarations are "scientific" materialism. He has a bad (or counter-revolutionary or capitalist individualist) attitude who notices a "tension" or even a 'paradox' between alleged royalness of the authorities and the duty to obey and believe whatever the authorities say.
In communism and liberalism, a good obeyer doesn't even really notice there are authorities; there are only experts -- a Party boss's interpretation of e.g. sacrificing Spanish republican communists is like a surgeon's interpretation of how to do an appendectomy. A UCC professor's interpretation of the Cold War is like an electrician's understanding of how to install a lighting system.
Objectively, this seems false. Surely there's no question communism and "liberalism" and liberation theology and feminism etc inculcate obedience not independent-mindedness. But these and similar alleged objectivities could not be noticed except in a noticer who had an evil attitude. We should extend the same courtesy to conservatisms: anyone is an evil free-enterprise supporter who notices that public institutions like Europe's railways run well when they are run by people who consider them important.
jpm
What would be the truly objective description of reality without an evil attitude? [or a good attitude] Or is the authoritative interpretation actually objectively accurate and is evidently so when one doesn't have an evil attitude which gets in the way? These questions are unsearchable in any objective way.
Nevertheless, a guilty conscience adheres to anti-authority 'conservatism' in our culture, and partly for this reason: if one didn't have an evil attitude, one wouldn't have noticed (or fancy'd one notices) problems with the authoritative liberal interpretation of stuff. If one didn't have an evil attitude in Christendom, one wouldn't notice any problems with the official Calvinist, Jesuit, generic RC, Eastern Orthodox, Quaker, Mennonite, etc interpretation if one weren't already an evil Calvinist, Catholic, Quaker, Mennonite, etc.
The Christian God commanded frighten'd obedience and also condemn'd fear of Him as sin: the obeyer should obey only out of implicit trusting love. One can see a "contradiction" or "problem" in that only if one is ready to be critical of God. And what implicitly trusting loving obeyer brings independent-mindedness to worship of God? (Nietzsche: if independentness is part of what is best in us God should wish to be worship'd by us in independentness. Accordingly God both wishes for this, and condemns this.)
Re noticing problems as possible only in someone who already has an evil attitude, cf Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, chapter 21.
-If God says "Don't look there" but you look there, you violate the obedience owed to God. Considering merely the action, this seems like no great injustice. But when looking there violates the will of God, one commits an infinite offense.
-Our only excuse is that God doesn't make "Don't look there" or "Don't look here" a foundational commandment. The Bible has forced Him and his authorities to claim to be in favour of truth and revelation, not obscurantism. Let to Him- and Themselves, they probably wouldn't even say "Don't look there or here" since that provokes inconvenient curiosity. In the same way, Hegel's historical scientia forced Marx to claim to be in the vanguard of historical revelation: we demand "a ruthless criticism of everything existing!" True, he wish'd to protect everything that doesn't want to exist from even the mildest inspections, but he couldn't say that without manifesting as the founder of a new priesthood of Egyptian obscurantism.
Similarly, feminist campaigners against the capitalist hetero-patriarchy's false consciousness for girls and women can hardly demand that one not notice problems with feminist analyses. And yet if one had a good attitude, one wouldn't notice any problems. Accordingly, maybe objectively there aren't any problems in liberal, feminist, communist or marxist etc analyses, and all appearance of problems results from an evil attitude that wishes to find problems.
QED. jpm
Post a Comment