Rape of Reason: The Eternity of Our Discontent

Racial Misappropriation: The Rights of Objectivity - A Critique of Neo-liberal Politics

As will be evident to some of you, I have borrowed my title from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Not only to remind us all of the fairness and correctitude to which every honest person is entitled, but to preserve the sanctity of political equity and to ensure that the free press maintains some sense of ethics in its dissemination of knowledge. 

In one of my recent city escapades, I found myself falling prey to the efforts of the advertising campaigns that I have repeatedly scorned. Written on a poster hoisted just above the median of the subway tracks read the following: "What do you call a Muslim woman who flies an airplane? - A pilot." This boring and cliched attempt at anti-joke solemnity and righteousness were enough to disappoint me, yet the worst had yet to come. Written somewhat stolidly and aridly underneath in fine print was "Racism stops here." Simultaneously, I felt one of the most potent mixtures of contempt, nausea, and disbelief that I have ever experienced. Bear in mind, comrades, that I own and have read the Book of Mormon.

I am sorry if the following salad of letters sounds like I am spelling this out for you, but since it is so obviously and readily taken for granted, I feel compelled to not only scrutinize what has been deemed to be inscrutable, but to sneer at it. For the last time, Islam is not characterized by race; it is not a religion of the brown-skinned oppressed, let alone a liberation theology for those who are politically and morally subjugated. Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Turkey and Lebanon are just a few examples that come to mind to subvert the idea of a complexion-based faith. In addition, seeing as the left is so concerned with respecting the religion of peace, they ought to know, that any effort to make sects and denominate the faith by tribe contradict its fundamental tenets. The chapter and verse currently escape me, but a quote not unlike the following reads in the Qur'an: "behold, we have made you in different likenesses and appearances that you may recognize each other". Consequently, to separate Muslims as a part of one ethnicity undermines Islam's claims to universality. As such, sectarianism (which is palpably and ironically ignored by the schools of Sunni, Shia, and Sufi) is by definition profane. If you are so encumbered with the task of protecting this alleged cringing and defenseless Western minority, it may be an aid to familiarize yourself with its dogma. Although, intellectual dishonesty seems to be a newly confected virtue among neo-liberals; not unlike the tawdry appeal of faith ipso facto. 

Aside from how the mullahs in Iran treat the people and how the youth (who comprise nigh 50% of the population) hate them, languishing in their desires to simply be able to hold someone's hand in public who isn't an immediate relative, there remains the necessity for investigation of politically and historically Islamic depravity and crime against the Americas. If you think Shia Islam mistreats its own faith-based adherents, imagine what it has in store for you.

Between the decades of 1750 to 1820, it is estimated by historians that upward of 1.5 million European and American slaves were captured by members of the vulgarly labelled "barbary states" - today known as Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Libya. When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison visited the shores of Tripoli in 1788, seeking an ounce of rationality or justification for North Africa's behavior, the clerics' chilling response declared "because the Qur'an says we can. You are infidels, fit to be treated as cattle and beasts of burden." A flotilla was deployed in retaliation to this wickedness, and the Muslims fleets were attacked. It also worth mentioning, that prior to these events the nascent United States of America had had no quarrel with the Islamic world. A sentiment that cannot be echoed today.

Ordinary reason and sincerity are repulsed by the intellectual laziness, mendacity, and hysteria fueled by mob opinion and the media at large. Do not be dissuaded by repeated appeals to pathos and pseudo-intellectual movie-theatre commercials in social discourse. This is a mental surrender, and a surrogate for the illogical values that have depredated our planet since time immemorial, ad nauseam. Don't be a hypocrite, my fellow skeptics and disbelievers. See through the thin veil of benevolence that emotional politics purport to offer, and demand truth ubiquitously. 

Thanks,

A disgruntled adeist 

How the "Left" has Become Reactionary: The Decline and Collapse of the University

The Hypocritic Oath

It does not take much perusal or examination to notice the recent and popular state of identity politics. Poor marketing campaigns and fantastically unlettered commercials metastasize, leaving most of their audience ecstatic and frenetic. Why is this? I submit, not so humbly, that the proliferation of these advertisements inadvertently (or potentially deliberately) contributes to the stupefaction of the public.

I don’t wish to sound like a snob, but I am astounded by the overwhelming consensus on uber-inclusivity. It cannot be that, dear comrades, our nation is made up of stupid and mindless cogs. I refuse to endorse such a heinous and unfounded proposition. However, I do think that one sentence could refute the apparent confidence of our society’s nascent faith – one of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority. Ironically, this motto would probably be hypocritically espoused and even marketed by those who occupy what I like to call, the alt-alt right. We have all at least heard of if not seen the hilariously inflammatory campaign taken up by one Mr. Milo Yiannopoulos, professional provocateur and Senior Editor of Breitbart News. Although at times crass (this shouldn’t be offensive to anyone, considering he admittedly tries to stir up the crowd; analogous to those who have children and then become shocked and terrified when their rugrats misbehave) his method of conveyance and media have been at times referred to as “the alt-right”. Classifying these people as a part of a neo-conservative movement would be ill-advised. Even though a portion of his audience could be labelled so, a decent number are skeptics and dissidents from the hate speech horde. The luridly obtuse and frumpy character of trigglypuff has circulated through various social media platforms, providing those who have any sense of intellectual and dialectical honesty with a sense of consternation and irritation. 

I too have had to deal with this tone and the poisonous effort of those who willingly want to commit cultural and political suicide. I once participated in a group known as the Off-Campus Community during the latter years of my undergraduate career. Being bestowed with the seemingly hollow title of "Don", I was responsible for guiding and presiding over a number of students by providing them with academic assistance, moral and emotional support, and organizing various events to ensure a balance of socializing and leisure amidst the hurdles of university life. Seemingly benevolent and helpful upon first glance, it only took a brief stint in the society to recognize its shortcomings and fatuity. Splayed pridefully on the north side was the code of conduct. A subliterate collection of burblings and bungling commandments that were supposed to govern over the nature of every single interaction that took place within those four walls. I hope I don't have to elucidate what is disturbing about a total solution. Ironic, it seems all too plain to me, that monolithic morality is by definition an oxymoron. Morality and ethics are not learned by pronouncements - they are eternally reasoned and reconsidered to suit a developing society and its citizens. Something that these group members would have stumbled upon, had they not derided and abjured the value of free inquiry in an effort to spare hurt feelings. 

The first of these concoctions read more or less like the following: "One must simultaneously make every effort to avoid offending anyone, and be sure to tolerate everyone's opinion". They considered this moronic precept to be something of considerable honor and perhaps even innovative. It takes only a short acquaintance with this order, to realize how this prevents anyone from being able to speak; abhorrently, it contemns discourse and the underrated result of disagreement. There is something sinister about this impulse. Why on earth would anyone want to avoid contention and controversy at all costs? It demonstrates that the apparent uniformity and conviction of this preachment, are more than likely a mask for a much more justifiable insecurity. Psychoanalyzing it further, it's palpably suggestive of the invertebrate nature of its proponents, and their desire to create another aspect of life in which to spurn human interaction. Much more horrifying and slanderous, this conduct operates in direct contrast to the intended purpose of a university; the Hellenic brilliance of anyone being able to discuss any idea at any time, regardless of how strong the speakers' predilection to offense-taking is.  

Evidently, as is the nature of totalitarianism, the principle of anti-antinomy is self-destructive. The chinks in its apparent armor proved to comprise more of the structure than the panoply itself. I couldn't get this simple point across to my colleagues and as such I was forced with no other choice but to resign. They continued their campaign of censorship with prideful promotion. This tendency forces one to reflect upon the obvious fact, that the society members express a creepy compulsion to be liked by everyone. I need not describe how boring and stultifying this sentiment is, but there is one thing of which I am sure; I have always in the very least been suspicious of someone who is universally praised and celebrated. Our world is beautifully and fortunately composed of dissenting individuals who necessitate opposition for growth - anyone who denies or profanes this requirement is either too diffident of their own convictions and social worth, or too stupid and unreconstructed to see how this is an axiom of life. Hence, I have no time or inkling to speak with anyone whose every waking impulse is to preserve pacifism. In short, I have never heard anyone say that their penchant for silence, obedience, or obsequity lead to innovation and progression. Albeit a rudimentary and paltry form, universities do make up a polity. If there is any hope of persistence and improvement, uniformity must be avoided and no opinion can be prohibited. 

As Alexander Hamilton said in his address to the people of the state of New York in 1847: "One flaw that religion and politics share is the effort to make proselytes by force and coercion". Truer words never spoken, but here is an M.S original: fossilized philosophy will forever remain the enemy of societal evolution.

Arrogantly submitted, 

The anti-don