Thursday, December 10, 2015

Tossing Thoughtcrimes through the Overton Window

Mouravieff goes on to say that we inhabit a Mixtus Orbis, which seems to be a fancy way of saying that ours is an ambiguous world ruled by good and evil. Worse, it is a place "where we find real and imaginary facts and phenomena inextricably intermixed."

I say "worse," because every great manmade catastrophe is predicated on a foundation of lies. A great evil is usually the result of the ruthless application and pursuit of a lie. But the person who embraces the lie virtually never regards it as such.

Rather, his moral fervor results from the fact that he regards the lie as true. While I don't like the word "radicalized," this is pretty much what it means, i.e., to embrace the lie with all one's heart, intelligence, and will. In this regard, Islamists are no less radicalized than Obama.

How and why do people become so confused between the two? "The difficulty in separating them is due to the fact that the Imaginary resembles the Real in the same way that the space beyond a mirror reflects what is actually present on the facing side." In other words, when we look "into" the mirror we see a space, but it is the space behind us.

And "When surrounded by mirrors, we can easily lose all notion of what is real." The real problem is that the imaginary "closely resembles the real," a good example being "homosexual marriage." It does not exist and cannot exist, and yet, millions of people insist that it can and does. But it is only a fake image of the real thing.

In the past we have discussed the idea of 'A' and 'B' influences. You could say that 'A' influences are horizontal at best, imaginary or demonic at worst. For example, whenever I watch television with my son, I point out all of the 'A' influences that are going on. After all, that is why television exists: to influence you, and not just to part with your money by purchasing things you don't really need.

Rather, the most sinister part is the 'A' influences coming from "left wing culture," or whatever you want to call it. These influences are relentless, which is one of the reasons why they can appear "real." In other words, the bombardment is so constant, that it can eventually convince people that the imaginary is real.

Along these lines, yesterday on Ace of Spades I read of a useful concept, the Overton Window. It "refers to the range of acceptable political discourse on any given topic":

"The Left -- dominating the media, the academy, and pop culture -- is unmatched at moving the Overton Window. Consider gay marriage, a subject once so far outside the mainstream that less than 20 years ago, Republicans and Democrats united to pass the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Now? That view is such an anathema that it’s difficult to get -- or retain -- a job in entire sectors of the economy if you openly hold to the traditionalist position on marriage."

So the left effectively moved the Overton Window to the point that the imaginary -- homosexual marriage -- is officially real.

With his comment about the dangers of Muslim immigration two days ago, Donald Trump tossed a brick through the Window, and look what happened -- complete hysteria in the media. It looked as if it were coordinated, but that is just an illusion, like when you lift a rock under which ants are living. Each ant knows only one thing, which is to protect the queen. It's the same with the liberal media. They run around like ants because they know only one thing: protect the (illusory) narrative.

So, if nothing else, Trump performs the vital service of vandalizing the Overton Window -- which is really more like a wall or prison: "he is useful for plowing through the... dead hulks of leftist thought that clog the trade-routes of political expression and debate."

The problem is, while Trump does a fine job of dropping bombs on the 'A' influnces, he has no 'B' influnces . Rather, unfortunately, he is, as Ace says, "a boorish and crude demagogue." We obviously need a candidate who does both: attacks the 'A' influences while channeling the 'B.' Now that I think about it, probably the only candidate who effectively does both is Ted Cruz.

Remind us, exactly what are 'B' influences? Here is a summary and contrast between the two:

"'A' influences are illusory in their nature, although the effect of each one of them is real, so that exterior man takes them for reality."

Importantly, they come at us from every which way and pull us in every direction, so that the sum total of their effect is zero. Think of the chaos of the left, which is chaotic because it is not oriented toward any telos and therefore undermines meaning, purpose, and real progress.

In reality, everything on the left cancels out something else on the left, which is what is going on, for example, with the left-on-left silliness of the campus crybully movement. Ultimately leftism is completely self-destructive and self-consuming. At least everywhere it has been tried.

Conversely, 'B' influences emanate from Celestial Central, AKA, the Great Attractor. They are not from this world, nor could they ever be. We are always subject to them, but only if we open ourselves to their influence. Few people are really completely cut off from them, or their souls would asphyxiate. Even atheists revere truth in their own way. Even materialists fall in love. Even Richard Dawkins transcends his genes. I think.

Now, "since 'A' influences neutralize each other, 'B' influences actually constitute the only reality." Thus, if a fellow should spend his days failing to distinguish between the two, then he has officially wasted his life, because it has added up to zero.

Also, as one assimilates the 'B' influences -- and this is very experience-near -- it is as if they accumulate and create their own "magnetic center" within, which is in turn magnetized toward the Great Attractor. Which is why, as we grow in spirit, we are less easily influenced and seduced by the 'A' influences and more drawn toward God -- just as the earth, small as it is, exerts a gravitational attraction on the sun.

Out of time.

6 Comments:

Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Google Best of the Web Thoughtcrime of the Day for today's Overton reaction by the left.

12/10/2015 11:55:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

The problem is, while Trump does a fine job of dropping bombs on the 'A' influnces, he has no 'B' influnces . Rather, unfortunately, he is, as Ace says, "a boorish and crude demagogue." We obviously need a candidate who does both: attacks the 'A' influences while channeling the 'B.' Now that I think about it, probably the only candidate who effectively does both is Ted Cruz.

Agreed. I am actually beginning to appreciate Trump's ability to smash that window, at least on some topics. But can you imagine him coming out and saying that gay marriage is wrong, or abortion is wrong? Hardly. He is very, very good at manipulating the worldly, and I'm starting to think he may have a real chance at the presidency. In some ways, that might even be good for the country, but in other ways... I dunno. When people on our side start idealizing him as much as the left has idealized Obama in the past, that can't possibly be good.

Part of his appeal right now is his willingness to utter mokita, and his utter indifference to criticism when he does it. If more conservatives were doing the same - speaking Truth and standing by it without apology when the inevitable screeching starts - Trump wouldn't be anything more than a sideshow right now.

12/10/2015 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

If more conservatives were doing the same - speaking Truth and standing by it without apology when the inevitable screeching starts - Trump wouldn't be anything more than a sideshow right now.

Bingo.

12/11/2015 04:31:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

I'd like to mention a kind of pattern I've observed: People with a strong urge to feel they need to first qualify their remarks before they say they like something about Trump. I noticed this first in the comments at Ace. They sound like this when I read them "I'd never vote for Trump... but if there were a gun to my head..." Or "if it were him against Hilderbeast." And so on.. I mean, the first example is not even absurd. So why say it?

Why do we feel a need to do this? It seems a kind of lie.

I'm not sticking up for Trump, but as to B influences, who am I to say if he has any? (see, I just did it). Truth be told, I get the sense he loves this country the way I do (or that country I used to know). Anyway, I'd take a try on Trump over That Guy That Hates Us.

Maybe he is a voice crying out in the wilderness. The original sounded pretty shocking at the time. And where did his truth bombs come from? And why do they ever work?

12/11/2015 06:54:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

"vandalizing the Overton Window"

Oh, I like that.

Somewhat on topic, I was reading a friend musing on the GOP race, and the upshot was that he thought the historical similarity to Trump, was Harding... and given Trump's seeming friendliness towards Cruz, could put Cruz in the Coolidge position. Of course then we'd need nature to get in on the historical rhyme, for us to get any benefit out of it, but... interesting.

I don't know enough about Harding to say if his comparison holds water... but it's an 'A' I could live with.

12/11/2015 09:01:00 AM  
Blogger Teri said...

Rick, I can't believe that you read that at Ace. There are definitely a number of Trump supporters, along with anti-Trumps that think he's a stalking horse for Hillary. I'm just happy to have someone running that can get past the media and isn't politically correct.

12/12/2015 07:48:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home