What if I Told You that Democrats Want You Back in the Matrix?
As Mohammad and José will soon be the most popular names of Democrat children, perhaps a generation from now Neo will be a common name among children of conservatives. I know that I am raising a Red Pill child -- a red diaper baby -- from the ground up. At 11 he already has more politico-economic sense than I did at 40. Of note, I don't force anything down his throat. That would be the way of the blue pillheads.
Rather, I ask him to explain from first principles or economic logic what is wrong with this or that Democrat promise -- for example, raising the minimum wage, or raising taxes, or a federal law forcing "gender pay equality." Each of these has an emotional appeal -- and only an emotional appeal -- but is easily demolished via an understanding of first principles (such as supply and demand) and the incentives being put in place.
This goes to why I transitioned from left to right. Did I already mention this? I'm forgetting, because I detailed it in a lengthy comment while attending a seminar a couple of weeks ago, but then the comment was lost due to malfunctioning hotel wifi.
You could say that it had to do with accidentally stumbling upon a number of what I thought to be "universal truths" to which any intellectually honest person would be forced to assent, irrespective of whether one calls oneself liberal or conservative. Truth is truth, obviously.
Actually, that tautology goes to one of the things I discovered after realizing that Truth is true: that for the left, this is not the case. Rather, what they say is true. But this simply follows from the principle that truth is relative -- or, as it is more commonly expressed, that no one can know the truth, such that all opinions are equally valid.
We have seen this principle ruthlessly applied during the Obama era. For example, it is at the very heart of all the racial healing Obama has brought about over these past eight years. We don't need to rehearse the whole disgusting record, but on numerous occasions I have seen liberal apologists on TV being confronted with the facts of the Michael Brown case (among others), only to respond that the facts were in the eye of the beholder, and besides, it illustrated a much greater problem -- for example, of police brutality toward minorities, or discrepant rates of incarceration.
But when shown that those are equally bogus, the blacktivists simply retreat into deeper swamps of bogosity. There is simply no reaching them with fact or logic. While I have the highest admiration for scholars such as Heather MacDonald who dispassionately lay out the facts, she is coming from one level, while the left is coming from another.
Or, back to our original theme, she is coming from outside the Matrix, while her detractors are coming from deep within it, such that it would require a muscular proctologist to pry them out.
Let's pause for a moment. This is not a political disagreement per se, because that would presume two sides operating from the same level. For example, let's say I am having a mathematical argument with someone holding a baseball bat. I suggest that 2+2=4, and he expresses his disagreement by fracturing my skull. Has he actually prevailed? Well, yes. But has truth been vanquished? No. Truth remains true, regardless.
The structure of that little absurd scenario is identical in form to most any argument with a liberal. For example, I say: labor, like anything else, doesn't escape the principle of supply and demand -- increase its cost and you will have less of it, AKA more unemployment. The liberal responds with his verbal brickbat: YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE YOU ARE A TOOL OF CORPORATE GREED YADA YADA!
Different levels, you see.
Here's a principle we can surely agree upon, right? After all, we're all Americans. Freedom of speech. Why do we have free speech, anyway? A typical liberal might suggest that it is gift of the government, but that is not what the founders had in mind.
Rather, it is a natural right that comes from the Creator; or in other words, it is in the nature of things. If you understand what a human being is, then you understand why he is entitled to freedom of thought, speech, and association -- why he requires these things in order to be human.
Which is why there are no speech codes on the right. Taste, yes. Decorum too. But on what possible divine-human principle can one ground governmental restrictions on speech? (And they are of course governmental so long as universities are propped up by federal and state funding.) To deny speech is to deny man; more insidiously, it is to prevent man, i.e., man in his principial fullness.
Or, as the Aphorist says: "All truths converge on the one truth, but the routes have been barricaded." Conversely, "God is the impediment to modern man."
In other words, the road to God is assiduously blocked by the left, for the very reason that God is the left's biggest roadblock. Discover God, and the left's principles disintegrate. This is precisely why "The left's theses are trains of thought that are carefully stopped before they reach the argument that demolishes them" (NGD).
Now, the only way out of the Matrix is via God. And I mean this quite literally, for any escape from the Matrix is categorically impossible without divine aid.
What I mean is that absent the transcendent Absolute, we truly are consigned to Kant's phenomenal Matrix. Of course we cannot know reality, rather, only the appearances given us by our neurology. We are in a closed circle from which we can never escape. End of story. Relativism reigns supreme, in which case it is indeed just as valid to say that Michael Brown was a Gentle Giant as it is to say he was a vicious thug too stupid to anticipate what happens when you charge a policeman and try to separate him from his gun.
I know I mention him a lot, but if you don't believe me, then believe Gödel. For our purposes, what Gödel proved with epic finality is that every Matrix has a hole. It brings to mind Leonard Cohen's great line that There is a crack, a crack in everything/ That's how the light gets in.
Ponder that one for a moment, for it extends vertically all the way back to our implicit memories of Eden, for what exactly happened there? We could say that man, faced with a primordial choice, chose the blue pill. For which reason we have the second commandment reminding us not to worship our own manmade idols, or to take up residence in our blue pill hallucinations.
Come to think of it, that is also why we have the second amendment to defend ourselves from blue pill poppers who want to force their barbarous idols upon us.
The left long ago lost the debate of ideas. Which is why their most effective idea is to just flood the zone with blue bodies: