A new ethic

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by mlw, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. mlw
    Offline

    mlw Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    74
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Ratings:
    +12
    It is high time that Western man changes his consciousness of moral matters. As a consequence people will change their ways. Today, we seem to have accorded human life, as such, with a sanctified status as the supreme good. It wasn't like this earlier in history. The Bakhtiari nomads are portrayed in Bronowski's documentary series from the seventies (The Ascent of Man). It was time for an old man to die. He had lost his zest so he chose not to follow the others who waded over the river during the yearly wandering. He just sat down on the hillside and awaited death. This event, which was regarded as wholly natural by the tribespeople, was played out before the camera. I am not saying that this is worthy of imitation. I am only saying that mankind has viewed these matters differently in earlier times. I am not advocating a return to olden ways, but perhaps we could learn something from history.

    Charitable deeds toward the needy has become an obsession, but this has as a consequence that nature is overtaxed. It is a double standard of morality. We ought to leave something behind for future generations, too, and not only think of the generations that are alive today. It is not self-evident to always give our support to all forms of human life. In earlier times it was not obligatory to subsidize the expansion of the human population in the Third World. There is a marked tendency to subsidize passive human life, because it panders to the basest emotions, whereas we should really give our support to a self-supporting human culture that can fend for itself without plundering nature. But people don't seem to care. The greater the population, the better it is. My country is invaded with immigrants from Third World countries, who are for the most part simple people. To subsidize these people is reckoned as the highest good, by most of my countrymen. The majority will eat, defecate, copulate, and lead completely meaningless lives in a civilization which is only capable of fending for their material needs, and nothing more. It has only destructive consequences.

    In fact, what really counts is the growth of the human soul, and not the passive and vegetating human flesh. The materialist obsession with multiplication of humanity must come to an end. It builds on a Marxist doctrine: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The Communist persecutions in the USA during the fifties builds on a misconception. McCarthy thought that the threat was represented by Communist individuals. In fact, it was the Communist way of thought, the obsession with a materialist interpretation of the world, which was infiltrating the human soul. The spirit isn't the center of attention anymore. It is the growth and well-being of human flesh that counts. Thusly, we need to be nourished and passively fed, according to the dictum: "to each according to his needs".

    Charity is precious, provided that it comes from the heart. But if charity derives from a doctrine that has been programmed into the head, it will lead to evil consequences. The first priority ought to be individual life with a spiritual connection. A better balance between spirit and matter obviates those setbacks in Fascism, Communism and Nazism, and global wars, in which individual life suddenly counts for nothing. The only thing that matters is the State and the Dogmas. Today, this standpoint is represented by radical Islamists, who want to accomplish the Caliphate, the Muslim state, in which religious law rules.

    Thus, as Communists and Socialists subscribe to a dogmatic form of charity (to each according to his needs), they will turn to the other extreme and worship the Communist state as the highest good, whereas the individual counts for nothing. Behind this materialist obsession with the sustainment of human flesh hides a collectivistic spirit that accords life with no value at all, and which aims to eradicate individuality. I have written about it in my Thanatos article, here. It seems to be a pendulum movement in history. The obsession with keeping each individual alive and wholly sustained changes into the opposite standpoint of collectivism where the individual counts for nothing, who can easily be sacrificed in war effort, or as a slave to the state. These are the opposite sides of the same coin, materialism and its flip side, Thanatos — the spirit of death.

    A conscious obsession with keeping human flesh alive is also an unconscious obsession with the spirit of death, that is, an unconscious worship of the slave state and the regulated and perfectly controlled society where individuality will perish. Thus, the spirit of collectivism is the enemy of the spirit of the individual. Americans always talk about "individual freedom". They should know that the spirit of Communism and Thanatos does not manifest in individuals, nor in President Obama, as has been alleged. It works differently. It slowly takes over the soul of people. It comes to expression in the obsession with keeping human flesh alive at all cost, and providing for the material needs of the global population, the striving for opulence, and making one's own life as materially comfortable as possible. There is a monster hiding in materialism, which threatens individual freedom. A simpler lifestyle, more in tune with nature, can ward off this threat.

    Mats Winther
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012

Share This Page