NOTE: this is a long post, but it connects many dots. Please consider reading it all the way through. It may help you see the bigger picture but, more importantly to me, it may help you provide me with additional pieces tot hat picture. — Thanks 🙂
Are you a member of a cult? Let me caution you against answering that question too quickly. First, ask yourself whether or not you believe there are such things as objective fact/reality and universal morality? If you do not, then there is a very good chance you have been indoctrinated by our schools and other supporting social institutions. You see, one of the main characteristics of a cult is mind control. We are all aware of a very common form of mind control, we just know it by another name: Political Correctness. But that is all Political Correctness is: a form of mind control that traces its roots directly to Marxism and the Secular Humanist ideal upon which Marxism is built. Our schools were taken over by Marxists nearly one hundred years ago, and they openly stated that they saw man as his own god, and that the teachers were the prophets of their new religion.* However, the Secular Humanist understands that his ideal cannot be achieved in a society that embraces the belief that objective fact and universal morality exist. This is why, for more than one hundred years now, our schools have en used to teach our students that there are no such things as objective fact or universal morality. Political Correctness is the shield that was then put in place to protect whatever ground the Humanists manage to gain toward their goal of re-making humanity according to their hearts’ desires.
I found this article in the New York Times that illustrates the problem of factual and moral relativism:
Now, the article is sound, and it does a good job explaining the problem we face. However, the true value of the article is found in the comments section. We will address a few of those comments shortly, but the point we should take away from them is that they vindicate everything Mr. McBrayer argues. They demonstrate the total lack of understanding which serves for ‘education’ in our modern society. The fact is, the majority of learned ancients would laugh at the most educated among us: rightly thinking the majority of us fools. But before we touch on those replies, let us consider a bit more of the history behind how we got here.
To one degree or another, the majority of Americans have the victims of indoctrination by the cult of Humanism. I count myself among this number. We all should. The founders of this cult are many, but most of them can be traced to the Fabian Socialists. In general, the Fabians opposed the Marxist call for violent revolution. They accepted Socialism as the way of the future; they just thought it could and would be brought about as a matter of ‘evolution’ — and evolution they believed they could consciously direct. In other words, the Fabians were ‘Progressives:’ they sought to build their socialist utopia through a slower process; to ‘progress’ toward their goal as opposed to revolution. This is fitting, too, as the Fabians were the fathers of the American Progressive movement.
Now, to help you understand the Fabians, let us look at two of their official symbols. First, a cleaned-up depiction of a famous stained glass window openly declaring their agenda to the entire world:
What you see are two characters beating the world into he shape they want it to be. These two figures represent the men who work behind the scenes. George Soros is the perfect example. These men purposely cause strife and unrest in the world to ‘heat up’ the world (i.e. people and nations) so as to make it easier for them to do what they want to do. You need to understand this is exactly what Hillary and Rahm Emanuel meant when they said they do not want to let a crisis go to waste:
Woodrow Wilson said the same thing, only he said war provided national leaders with this opportunity as it scares the people into willingly ‘sacrificing’ their liberty for safety. Wilson was not alone in this belief:
“The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times.”
–Joseph Goebbels, NAZI propaganda minister
Since the World Wars, men have been looking to replace war with something less destructive. They call it the moral equivalency of war,** but it serves the same purpose: it provides humanists with an excuse to enslave the people. This ‘equivalency’ includes things such as ‘social justice,’ racism, ‘the war on women,’ ‘climate change’ and — now — open attempts to incite civil unrest such as the Zimmerman and Ferguson cases. Now, before you start thinking this is all part of a conspiracy theory, let us look at one more part of the Fabian window — the figure in the shield above the globe.
Yes, the Fabians claim the wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is because they make no secret about the fact that they work from the shadows, and under a false guise of ‘helping’ the people. But, in truth, they are liars and deceivers seeking to make the world into their own personal possessions. One of the primary means they have used to achieve this goal has been education — especially in the West.
If you read the link about cults and mind control, then you know that cults try to strip the individual of their personal identity and brainwash them into accepting a group identity. This is part of the Humanist agenda. We call it collectivism. Now, let’s return to Dewey for a moment. He said:
“Education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”
“I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.”
Right here, Dewey tells us that he thinks the individual should surrender to the community, and that this should be forced on them by government. Dewey was also part of the Eugenics movement, so he believed they were being ‘scientific’ when they chose the path for all humanity, and that this imparted a moral duty to them as the only people who understood the responsibility to direct the evolution of man. It is also why Dewey said:
“The end justifies the means only when the means used are such as actually bring about the desired and desirable end.”
However, if Dewey and the Progressives were ever going to build this collectivist utopia of theirs, they had to teach people what to think — not how to think. If you follow the debate on Common Core, then you may be aware that Common Core stresses the process rather than the result. In other words: Common Core cares more about controlling how you think rather than whether or not you get the correct answer. It also makes that process impossibly complicated, so as to discourage independent thought. Once again, before you dismiss my claim, consider what Dewey said about this issue:
“Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be worked.”
Dewey clearly states that the mental process and not the correct answer is what matters most. Now, why would all this require that students be taught what to think instead of how to think? Well, Dewey answered this, too:
“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”
So, if you know how to think for yourself, you threaten the Humanist agenda. So, they teach you what to think, not how to think, then they establish political correctness to keep you in line. It is classic cult indoctrination. But, now, let us look at the product of this indoctrination in the comments section of the New York Times editorial. One commenter stated:
“One could start by pointing out that “all men are created equal” cannot be a fact, since it is only belief that means that some people believe that humans are ‘created’.
And since “all men” (let’s treat this as ‘human beings’ for the sake of the discussion) are patently not born equal in terms of the real situations into which they are born, it is intellectually misleading to present this as a fact…”
If “Amanda” had been taught history, she would know that the founders did not think we were all born equal in terms of physical condition and ability. They believed we were born equal according to our rights. Now, if we accept Amanda’s argument, then how can we argue against slavery, or sexism or even the extermination of people ‘science’ has proved to be ‘undesirable?’ In fact, if there is no universal moral law, then we not only cannot argue against these things, we have to argue for them! Evolution is on the side of the strong, so we should have backed the South and slavery as well as Hitler. But Amanda has been taught what to think, not how to think, so she cannot see the logical extension of her argument. Another reader writes:
“…Morality as opinion does not preclude the existence of moral truth, but rather precludes the existence of verifiable evidence of a moral truth. Incidentally, Jefferson apparently saw nothing wrong with treating moral truth as opinion, because he held certain things “to be self-evident” rather than “verified by some piece of evidence…”
Sadly, Nathan’s complete argument exposes his complete lack of understanding of the rules of basic logic. I purposely avoided addressing this as it would require a post all in its own. The point I want to make here with Nathan is that he is expressing the position that a self-evident truth is an opinion, and that this implies there can be no such thing as a universal moral law. It is easy to refute Nathan. He seems to think he has a right to express his opinion. How do we know? It is ‘self-evident’ in his words. It is equally self-evident that we all know we exist (because we think, we exist) and we all have a natural sense of wrong when it comes to the things others do to us. These things are both self-evident, and proof that there is a universal moral law. If this were not the case, then Nathan would not be posting. in fact, he would accept whatever ideas anyone posted as equally valid to his own. Yet he does not do this. Why? Because — even though he says otherwise — it is ‘self-evident’ to Nathan that there is objective truth as well as universal morality. He just can’t say so because he has been programmed to think otherwise, and is held in check by Political Correctness.
But it is in this last point where find a glimmer of hope. The Humanist wants the average person to just accept that there is no truth, no moral right or wrong. The Humanist wants us all to think that what is right and wrong for you may not be right or wrong for me and that this is all OK. If we do this, then it is easier for them to break the law without fear of consequences (as we see in our society today). But, though he clearly shows the effects of his indoctrination, Nathan still betrays the fact that he knows there is a right and wrong. If his indoctrination had been completely successful, Nathan wouldn’t even have replied to this article because the idea that anyone has an exclusive hold on truth would be as acceptable to him as no one having it. It is self-evident that Nathan does not believe this, and in that there is hope for our society. Unfortunately, it is the slimmest of hopes.
* “The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life…. In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.”
–John Dewey, Father of the modern American education system, speaking on his goals for American education after returning from visiting Revolutionary Russia [“The Russian educational situation is enough to convert one to the idea that only in a society based upon the cooperative principle can the ideals of educational reformers be adequately carried into operation.” ]
** The Moral Equivalency of War was written by William James, another American Progressive linked to the likes of John Dewey.