A lot of well-meaning normal people still make the mistake of thinking the Death Cult are moral relativists.
But scratch a Death Cultist, and you’ll find a moral absolutist, as a recent exchange on X illustrates.
Every once in a while, a poll comes out showing that growing numbers of Americans on the right and the left favor a national divorce along ideological lines.
But as our Cultist above admits, the true believers will never let us leave.
Releated: Briggs’ Death Cult Compass
“These Cultists are moral busybodies,” you might say, “but at least they have high-minded ideals.”
I answer, to disabuse yourself of that quaint notion, read on.
Notice how the Cultist advocates using government force to override popular sovereignty, despite her media high priests droning on about how sacred democracy is.
Boomers would point and crow “Look! She dropped the mask and revealed her hypocrisy!”
And they would be wrong, as we’ll see.
For those in the cheap seats, here’s what’s going on under the hood of this discussion:
- Death Cultists operate on the moral level, despite any pretense to the contrary
- The source of Death Cult morality is the Cultists’ feelings
- Those feelings justify imposing the Cult’s doctrines on everyone without exception by any means necessary, up to and including force.
The preceding may look like a paradox, but again, it’s not.
What you’re looking at is the inevitable logical extreme end of Modernism.
Related: The Ethic of the Death Cult
Because when all questions are reduced to matters of personal preference, the result isn’t freedom, or even rampant debauchery (though you get that as well). It’s total, unlimited tyranny.
Why? The apparent contradiction isn’t hard to untangle.
If the sole measure of the good is individual preference, before long, two people’s preferences will come into conflict. And because everyone—and thus everyone’s tastes—are equal according to Modernism, the only recourse to resolve these conflicts is state power.
Just like the Death Cultist on X admitted.
So, what’s the right way to respond when a member of the Death Cult starts pontificating based on her feelz?
Also simple: Deny her unwarranted claim to moral authority.
So ends the lesson.
Get VIP access to my patron-exclusive Discord, early looks at my works in progress, and the chance to influence my writing.
Sign up at Patreon or SubscribeStar now.
That was backwards thinking coming from your target subject from the very beginning. The urban can’t survive two weeks without the rural, even if we rolled back Just-in-Time logistics to having inventories on-hand. The rural on the other hand, could muddle through quite nicely without the major urban bug clusters. Literally retarded in cause-and-effect throughout that person’s basis of defense of what “must be done”.
Side-note: having lived there for several years, if Cali collapses, it will be the rural areas that have some semblance of life left to them, not the urban hellholes. Those will collapse almost overnight.
Followed through to its inescapable conclusion, her position leads to enslaving farmers in red counties by force. All in the name of preventing slavery.
Yes, the Death Cult is that warped and evil.
Full inversion of stated intent. Amazing how often that just happens to occur in these wafer-thin intellectuals.
“Oh, well. It’s for their own good, so I can go back to my hive pod and do something else.”
I saw a study the other day showing that one common trait shared by many Death Cult true believers is low verbal IQ. It makes sense, given how hard they fall for rhetorical tricks.
Urban weirdos: “Your children can eat, because blue states financially support you. Won’t you think of your children?”
Also urban weirdos: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxhnmNetG0hHdthRI_pMHr0eUBgC7z0e6C?feature=shared
…and the children! Mustn’t forget the starving children!
Boy it’s a good thing rich blue cities don’t profit off slavery or child labor, I mean it’s not like iphones are built in factories with suicide nets and green tech relies on mineral materials dug up by African children.
Our moral superiors.
They’re almost as bad as Conservatives who subscribe to Netflix.
That thread was painful to read. Saw a little bit more when she went after CatholicDan. Brian, you were right about the common low verbal IQ bc that’s exactly what I saw. It ended as you’d expect – she walked away because she saw Dan as defending slavery.
It really is a cult – if you try to say anything about slavery other than that it’s evil, you get branded as the slaveholder (which happened to Dan). You’re not allowed to question why it happened or the context of how it happened. No. It’s either you dismiss it as evil, never question it, or you’re the problem.
That’s why peaceful separation is imperative. There is no way to coexist with people this a) detached from reality and b) fanatically opposed to any dissent.
I noticed something else too — at one point, she conflates abortion bans with slavery, calling it “gestational slavery.”
This is another trick of theirs — taking bad words and broadening their meaning to include your position. “Slavery” is whatever she says it is.
Things like this have convinced me against atheism.
Speaking of atheism, “You need some ‘authority’ to tell you slavery is wrong?” is a Dawkins-tier rebuttal. Instead of being lectured on Imago Dei and sin, women like Genevieve are best told to get back in the kitchen and to not return without a bologna sandwich and a root beer.
I’ve seen that sort of thing before in other contexts. It’s another case of borrowing Christian morality while explicitly rejecting it. In this case, they borrow the conclusion – slavery is wrong – but reject the Tradition or authority which establishes why slavery is wrong, while pretending they had arrived at this conclusion themselves. Any reference to Scripture or Tradition makes us somehow less moral than they are because we acknowledge authorities outside ourselves.
She’s only a step or two away from lining herself up for a good, solid Witch Test. Almost guaranteed to fail.
A fun rebuttal to that to list abortions among the moral wrongs and when called on it saying “you need an authority to tell you that killing babies is wrong?”
Note that I say “fun” rather than “good” or “effective.” It won’t convince someone like her of anything, nor people who agree with her. They will swap to trying to claim moral indignation, ex. “you DARE to force women into slavery by denying them the right to choose?!?!”
The truth is that they aren’t trying to make an argument. They are trying to find some proper permutation of words to cast a magic spell to get you to surrender. In the past due to the Christian culture paired with the conservative tendency to prefer losing to being called mean, that meant dressing up your claims in Christian morality even while rejecting Christ. It can be quite hilarious to see them try the same thing with say a Muslim saying that alcohol should be banned, or actually defending slavery for that matter.
They’re relativists insofar as they acknowledge no criterion for morality beyond themselves.
They’re absolutists in that they treat those criteria as binding on all mankind.
I’m not saying they’ve hit full “We are gods, knowing good and evil” … but I am saying we can see that conclusion from their current position.
“If the sole measure of the good is individual preference, before long, two people’s preferences will come into conflict. And because everyone—and thus everyone’s tastes—are equal according to Modernism, the only recourse to resolve these conflicts is state power.”
It’s really interesting that this is pretty much what I feel the social dynamic has become in most Western countries: a series of atomized and disconnected individuals/groups completely incompatible with one another, only bound together by dictates of the state which can sometimes be changed on a whim. If you form a society in which the only true social norm is your loyalty to state views/opinions, this is where you end up.
Their view of individuality is also profoundly warped. As an example: yes, men and women have equal value as human beings, but this does not make them equal in a literal sense. There are certain things men can do that women can’t and vice versa. To pretend otherwise is a blatant denial of reality. And whilst it’s true that each human being is unique, this does not make them ‘special’. No person on earth is some unfathomable edge-case, but they still have an intrinsic value and dignity that must be respected.
Because of this distorted view, they basically end up seeking the complete destruction of individuality (an ‘obliteration of the self’, if you will), because in their mind, the existence of any individual conflict will inevitably lead to a maelstrom of chaos and anarchy, so it must be avoided at all costs.
Their utopia (at least from my perspective) seems to be that they’re aiming for this magical moment when all the planets align and they’ve finally created enough new ‘gender identities’ and ‘special preference groups’ to have all conflict cease. They’re basically stuck in an endless cycle of trying to appease any new group to maintain order.
What makes it so sad is that they’d be better off accepting the reality that actually exists and moving from that, rather than spending all this time and energy enforcing a system that’s spiralling into utter madness…
I am not sure that I quite agree with your thinking that this is primarily a moral issue
I believe that the morality issue – which exists – is a behavioral consequence, rather than a driver
For background, I recall some years ago a video by Stefan Molyneux where he described the three questions that philosophy is supposed to answer:
– What is Real?
– What is True?
– What is Good?
Well, “What is Real” is really the area of philosophy named Ontology
“What is True” is really related to accurate learning and understanding, the area of philosophy named Epistemology
And “What is Good” is really the question of Ethics/Morality
In your example, the Death Cultist is challenging you on the level of Ethics/Morality
You are initially responding using Ethical arguments – to no effect
Normally, normal thinkers will assume that the individual has just not thought things through and try to educate them (or simply point out logical issues, as in this example) as to their error – in other words the response is via Epistemological argument
This also always fails – that is because the Death Cultist has an entirely different view of reality than the normal individual has
The differences are at the Ontological level and would need to be addressed there. Unfortunately, folks with alternative, artificial, and unchallenged views of reality will not typically change their views until REAL reality smacks them in the face