Yes, Virginia, there is an intelligent design.
The theory of the evolution of living creatures is supported against the rival theories of creationism and paracreationism (ID) by the fact, easily observed, that many things are relevant to it that are not to the latter. Insects and the flowers they pollinate have intricate relationships; at least, they do if you are an evolutionist. These details are irrelevant to a creationist, who can do nothing with them. Liberalism is in the position now that creationism would be if it were considered impolite to be an evolutionist. The details that are of no interest to a liberal—unless one counts the desperate desire to suppress any whisper of a fact as an interest in it—are the weapons against which it cannot defend. If you set a fact before a liberal and get the response that you would get when providing a cat with a grape, you may have found a weapon. If you set a fact before a liberal and it attacks you and not the fact, the fact of that response should be of great interest to you. Discourse is war.
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
You make points that definitely resonate with me. I’ve thought about what you bring up from time to time. It is indeed ironic that the ostensibly anti-religious Gramscian Marxists who so deride “creationism” (and Christianity in general) and revere “evolution” are the very same people who scream bloody murder someone tries to apply evolutionary theory to differences among human races or to society.
One suggestion. Don’t call the other side liberals. The definitions of political terms like that have been bastardized over the years that it’s become meaningless (the opposite of a “conservative” is not a bad thing from where I sit, for example). It is useless to try to reclaim those words, imo and it has always looked rather weak to me to use “liberal” as an epithet in any case. I usually call them “Frankfurt School communists”. That more specifically describes them (whether they knowingly and consciously subscribe to that school or not).
I like your thinking Soren! It’s a bit of work to decode, but that’s part of the fun of reading your posts.
If one removes the first part of your post, and deletes the named target in the last three sentences, a grouping of tactical possibilities and a possible strategy emerges. (apologies to Scrooby!)
“The details that are of no interest to a (fill in the blank)——are the weapons against which it cannot defend.” [read: the defensive perimeter has no sentries posted here]
“If you set a fact before a (fill in the blank) and get the response that you would get when providing a cat with a grape, you may have found a weapon.” [read: an entry point for a weapon while the guard is asleep]
“If you set a fact before a (fill in the blank) and it attacks you and not the fact, the fact of that response should be of great interest to you. “ [read: you’ve discovered a motivator for getting the enemy to jump into a trap set for it]
“Discourse is war.” [in a war of perception, it’s the vehicle for the troops]
I see your ideas as part of a “rule set” for creating discourse that pierces the protective outer membrane of the enemy proposphere/matrix. If one is at war, one must get past the outer enemy defense lines before attacking the core forces occupying your territory. In propospheric war, the outer perimeter of enemy occupied territory is guarded by the “Four Pillars of the Propasphere”: 1) Perception Management, 2) Myth Projection, 3) Taboo Maintenance, and 4) Heresy Punishment. These “things” behave like an invisible force field, keeping the “forces of evil” in power, and fooling the “captive folk” into mistaking their captors for friends. No advance is possible without getting past this perimeter, which exists in the minds of the inhabitants.
Your post looks like a guideline for creating “stealth” memes which will pass through the protective membrane and explode the consensus trance from within. We’re talking weapon technology here, right Soren??
Next let’s talk Delivery Systems…
Posted by Old Guy on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 07:35 PM | #
"It’s a bit of work to decode, but that’s part of the fun of reading your posts.”
No finer compliment.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 09:53 PM | #
And in decoding, one is forced to think and ponder the meaning. Most written works are a few memes, and the rest is filler. It has been argued by James Flynn that we appear smarter over time because we have left the “concrete” world for one that has a “feedback loop” that enhances more critical, abstract thinking. It pushes our mental boundaries and challenges human thought beyond the simple needs of survival.
The use then of short memes and insightful observations to challenge modern propaganda can work because it can be remembered by a few and repeated to the many. They probe the defenses, find the weaknesses, and allow challenges where only ad hominem attacks are the normal response.
I think this approach can work if we are more aware of the power of its use, as stated above, to find the weaknesses in the defense. We all know what they are in principle, but not as replicable memes to be spread around. As we personally find these memes to be statements of our positions, using them to link ideas and people become imbedded in the discourse. We should all keep a handful of the most potent sayings to attach to our emails, observations, etc. to spread the message and the people behind the message. Then the most penetrating will stick, and they will have to be answered. If not answered, they become the current wisdom.
Posted by Matt Nuenke on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Humour as a Weapon
Previous entry: Hutchinson looks ahead: The draining of national prosperity
Posted by John on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 06:35 PM | #