My New Blog

I have moved to Wordpress. Click here to see it.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Moral Hypocrisy as Virtue

I've found in my personal life that there exists a skewed and counter-productive moral theme in western society that few seem to pick up on. If you have associated with (especially) teenagers of the Generation Y, you'll notice that being "non-judgmental" seems to be one of the great virtues of our time, comparable to valor in ancient Gaulish tribes, and discipline and dominance in ancient Roman society, though it seems to especially revolve and extend around (homo and bi)sexuality. Indeed, when a generation's virtues largely focus themselves on how others think about what gets their ends wet, it seems we have crossed the threshold of societal autoimmune collapse.

Though, it appears that this misled ideology could be the metholody of cultivating a false Utopian peaceable and amicable setting, unless you suddenly barge in, like me, a vile judge and discriminator of folk. With this, the non-judgmentalists enter into a state of collective psychosis at the prospect of their prized moral being befouled by a ravenous heretic, and virtuously descend upon and scrutinise the pillager of blind-empathetic harmony.

The massively indoctrinated double standard of being "non-judgmental" is supposedly some great and epic virtue, but when it comes to "judgers", its all fair game, here. And its only those who don't fit into the mold of socially accepted multiculti-worshippin', feminism-manginerin',  tradition rapin' sycophants that are nominees for the "non-judgers" to judge without reprive.

It's almost as if these people have been programmed to not know what "judging" is. You're making a moral assessment of someone, which I would think would be an important tool to have in your daily life to ensure survival, and to try to bond with peers who share the same or similar values, and generally make decisions in life. But clearly, in the PC land of doublethink and cultural masochism, your survival is an industry to be nationalised and subsidised by the State. Go back to sleep, kids. The government's in control.

Non-judgementalism seems to parallel a lot with the demonification of  the word and act of "discrimination", evidenced in this gem, that came up in the news recently, with the media squirting its collective panties over a potential "race row" in the Hobbit movie:
 Briton Naz Humphreys, who has Pakistani heritage, attended a casting session in Hamilton last week, queueing for three hours only to be told her skin tone was not suitable, the Waikato Times reported.

"It's 2010 and I still can't believe I'm being discriminated against because I have brown skin," Humphreys told the newspaper.

This is a great example of how Political Correctness has established a stranglehold on certain words and concepts. Discrimination would normally be considered an ability to make a distinction based on differentiations, but even in an innocent act of discrimination such as this in our multiculti-hijacked era, the gears of the white guilt machine shifted in place, planting an expectation in the foolish girl's mind that being non-selected for a role based on her skin colour was automatically indicative of a hidden racial agenda. The implication of being discriminated against alone is justification enough to sound the siren of racial injustice.

PC seems to especially work well on the intellectually vacant, if the following quote by Humphreys is any indication of her dormant facilities:

" ...They all look kind of homogenised beige..."

Hey retard, have you ever seen a hobbit? They look about as white and Anglo as Winston Churchill. A whore's bleached arsehole is more biege than a hobbit.

Yes, very beige. I think Frodo might have a little Pakistani in him, in fact.


Marcus Aurelius said...

I hadn't heard of that hobbit story but definiately political correctness gone mad. That's a solid observation on values by the way. People are more concerned with appearing unbiased than making sensible choices.

JD said...

Thanks Marcus. By the way, excellent namesake. A big fan of the classics, are you?

You're very right about common values nowadays, people have an inverted sense of morality, in that we live in largely a post-christian society where the universalist egalitarian moral qualms and guilt are liberally (politically and non-politically) manipulated and twisted into a sense of puritanical and universal guilt and worry, which manifests itself into very conscious about "being waaaycist" or into the nihilistic non-judgementalism we see. That's just it, being apathetic in relation to morality and decisions is the course of the day.

Anonymous said...

Ta. A man has to have something to read besides tabloids, right? ;) That and I find dismissing ideas just because they are old/new/popular/unpopular laughably stupid.

Allowing equal opportunity is a very different thing to thinking everyone is equal. That's a logical fallacy; some people are going to be more capable in a given area (or areas) than others. Of course simple logic isn't convenient when members of a society are trying to pretend that everyone somehow wants, needs and are the same thing.

Post a Comment