Reflections From a Murky Pond

Cultural Relativism is a term coined by philosopher and social theorist Alain Locke. It became popular – indeed, axiomatic among certain Liberal intelligentsia – due to the extended works of anthropologist-cum-activist Franz Boas and the large number of students who followed the doctrine of Boasian anthropology and its call for them to use their studies in the cause of social activism rather than maintaining the detachment, objectivity, abstraction, and quantifiability in their work that is the touchstone of true scientific endeavor.

Cultural Relativism

Function: noun

Date: 1924

Definition(s):

1. the belief that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another, the view that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good/bad, right/wrong

On the plus side, Boaz was correct in maintaining that groups’ behaviors are based upon their culture as opposed the their race. This, however, is more than counterbalanced by his postulate that Right and Wrong only exist within respective cultures and societies and that it is wrong to judge individuals’ actions by any higher and/or more universal standard.

Cultural Relativism – Keeping One’s Head Buried In The Sand

Of course, cultural relativism requires that individuals and societies keep their heads firmly buried in the sand to avoid noticing any of the behaviors of others that might find objectionable or horrific.

Cultural relativists cling to the belief and, following the tenets of Boasian activism, try to force others to accept that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value and that diversity of cultures, even those with inherently conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad.

Read the rest of this entry »

A simple comparison between men who’s lives have become embroiled in the public’s consciousness – George Zimmerman and Barack Obama…

Zimmerman v. Obama

One, George Zimmerman, has a history of putting himself in harms way and putting his community before himself. The other, Barack Obama, has a history of protecting himself and rarely considering the needs of his community much less putting those needs above his own desires.

One, George Zimmerman, was acquitted of murdering one angry, young Black male who attacked him. The other, Barack Obama, has ordered the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and will likely never see the inside of courtroom, much less a prison or death chamber.

A simple comparison between to people, one who would be hero if he were not too White and another who be a villain if he were not too Black.

Yes, I know that there are some, the Liberals and the minority tenants, who will rave that it’s racist to compare George Zimmerman and Barack Obama because holding a Black to the same as standards as a White Hispanic is grossly unfair and can never lead to equal results. Oh well. They can just call me a racist and move on.

Consider this – In this modern and woefully (mis)educated age the greatest and some of the most pernicious examples of injustice have been and are being perpetrated for the sake of abolishing the perceived inequalities of outcome of certain protected individuals and groups. Properly blind justice has been sacrificed on the alter of forced egalitarianism.

Criminals, especially the low-order thugs specializing in- and limited to violent crimes, make and repeat poor choices in their lives. Inherently, this poor decision making capability is why they’re criminals in the first place.

Remember, however, that there is a difference between poor choices in the context of long-term success or failure and wrong choices in the context of immediacy.

While there’s a whole lot wrong with these videos – this is to be expected from commercials – there’s a whole lot right about them as well. They show citizens, either law enforcement personnel or normal civilians, making a criminal’s poor choice a wrong choice as well.

Evolution In Action

It’s really odd and frustrating that the Liberals and Progressives are so dead-set against the citizenry being armed and able to ensure that criminals’ poor choices are also very wrong choices with heavy consequences. They claim to be staunch advocates of Darwinism and evolution but fail to understand that evolution of sophants is, by and large, a case of intelligent design. Society far more than natural effects determines and individual’s fitness for survival and breeding.

Removing a criminal, especially a violent thug, from society either through extermination or lengthy incarceration followed by lasting social disapprobation and stigma goes a long way towards removing unsuccessful and atavistic genes from the race, either directly and immediately through extermination or secondarily through eliminating or sharply curtailing the thugs’ ability and opportunity to reproduce.

Civic Responsibility

I will also posit that, while an individual does not have a responsibility or duty to improve the race through culling the defectives within it, he or she does have the civic responsibility and duty to protect themselves from harm rather than to solely rely upon others to do so.

It is simply not right for people to demand and enjoy the privileges of a society while willfully refusing to discharge the basic responsibilities of a member of that society. Those who do willfully refuse to do so are not members of their society; they are parasite upon it.

Presented for your interest and possible education – An Equality Parable:

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said, “Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together. “

So the doctor said, “OK, and what do you want me to do?”

She said, “I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.”

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady, “I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.”

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then he continued, “‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.” 

The lady was horrified and said, “No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child! “

“I agree”, the doctor replied. “But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.”

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The only horrific possibility that this parable conjures up is that some creatures who mock Mankind by mimicking our physical form believe that murdering the newborn infant should be allowable as well.

Fortunately, for right-thinking people’s ammunition budgets if nothing else, such subhumans are quite rare. Even the vast majority of Feminists don’t publicly claim that killing their born children is an acceptable practice.

Sadly, many people do make the distinction between the born and unborn and do not think of unborn babies as being humans who are supposedly protected by law from being murdered.

If it wasn’t so depraved and evil it’d be funny how these sorts, most of whom are very big into “minority rights,” have decided that they can make the decision as when someone is and isn’t person. They, when it suits their agenda, conveniently forget that we made those decisions in the past and little that is now considered good came of it.

So to do they forget that every qualifiable and/or quantifiable argument that they put forth in favor of exterminating unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all beyond the female’s convenience can and has been used to justify the extermination and/or enslavement of those minorities that they claim to support.