Absentee Moralism
A local do-gooder says that WE MUST address the problem of "genocide in Darfur." I believe I have as much sympathy for and desire to help my fellow human creatures as the next man (if less than a good Christian should). But I don’t remember signing up for WE. What is this WE? And who is deciding what WE MUST DO? Does it occur to this do-gooder that he is demanding that fellow citizens give of their goods and risk their lives to satisfy his pose of benevolence? This absentee moralism strikes me as the most fundamental flaw of the American national character and a form of fraud that has played a large part in bringing on most of our national disasters, including the War Between the States, World War I, and mass Third World immigration.
Entries(RSS)
Has not every single action by "our" government in "our" name been for the sole and tangible benefit of the powers that own and rule this country, always?
No, my point was that "the powers" rely on a widespread phony moralism to acheive their ends. Perhaps the most conspicuopus example is Civil Rights---millions of Americans got an opportunity to morally preen themselves by forcibly integrating OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.
The biggest flaw in the American character isn't so much "absentee moralism" as it is excessive sentimentality.
The typical American commoner (let's not even START on the elites !) is pig-ignorant of virtually anything not connected with his/her/its next drink, feed or sexual encounter, unless it is television. The medium itself, as Neil Postman pointed out several years ago, is geared primarily to activate the emotional centers of the brain. Since virtually everyone born after 1940 was marinated in TV and mass media from birth, their brains developed in such a way as to be more focussed on sensing and expression of emotions than on rational thought.
The War of Northern Imperialism was started for reasons that were, rightly or wrongly, based on real things, real issues. World War I ("the War that Wrecked the World") was based on deceptions about real events and real issues. Even World War II was based on real issues---one does not get more real than a dawn air attack on a major military base.
Since the advent of Television (or, as author Theodore Judson might have described it, the Dawning of the Age of Excrement), it has become increasingly easy to deceive or trick the American commoner into supporting war or any other indignity that the political elite wished to bring into being. VietNam was rather clearly based on a lie. The Gulf War was based on more deceptions ("jobs, jobs, jobs"). And the current Conquest War in Iraq......that would be prime-grade Theatre of the Absurd if it weren't for the colossal waste of lives and resources.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
This notion of the "WE" is a manifestation of the false charity which has been spooking around America at the very least since the coming out of the unitarians and transcendentalists. It holds that when a person is motivated by"sensitive" feelings, which appear to be the Ersatz-morality, he is duty bound to implore and compel the government, i.e. that entity which has a monopoly of force, to coerce person A to give of his life, his liberty and/or his property to person C, a real or alleged victim of something.
When compared to REAL Christian charity, the flaw of this false charity is evident. From the Christian perspective, the Almighty, as owner of everything, has given to us as individuals the gifts of life, liberty and property to hold in stewardship. As His Spirit moves us as individuals to give of those gifts with which he has entrusted us and as we act on His prompt, we practice charity, i.e. God's love (agapae) in action through us to others. This and only this is a moral act. Thus, if God moves me personally to go to Darfur and put the life with which He has entrusted me on the line, then this is a moral act. When, however, some third party, with highminded sentiment gets the government to coerce me to go to render aid, no party has acted morally.
Thus, the noble causes behind which the state/empire carries out its nefarious schemes in the context of the warfare and welfare are rooted in this counterfeit and faux charity which is the gospel of the secular pulpits!
This sentimental and hypocritical moralism has been typical of Anglo-Saxon countries at least since the time of Dickens. The great writer criticized those in Britain who agonized over the fate of black slaves in the Caribbean while ignoring the plight of the exploited working class in their own country.
One of the most ridiculous of all the world's "truisms" is: "Dont sweat the small stuff." I'm sure this was coined by one of the WE's out there. As a real, organic human being living a real, organic life the only thing I should sweat is the small stuff as it's the only thing I can actually do something about.
WE's seem to be obssesed only with problems far removed from themselves. They have become so indoctrinated into the "official" version of life that they've lost their sense of what it means to live.
Pretending to care about something one can do nothing about is no substitute for getting your hands dirty helping a neighbor you can actually touch. But it sure is a lot easier.
"This sentimental and hypocritical moralism has been typical of Anglo-Saxon countries at least since the time of Dickens." (Theodore Van Oosbree).
In the words of Lord Macaulay "We know of no spectacle so ridiculous,as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality".
As for Christianity, it has hypocrisy built in, big way. E.g., see the Cana wedding scene: the do-gooder Jesus magically feeds all those hungry people, for one day - only. One may ask, what about the remaining 364 days and, god-forbid, beyond? Well, let them eat cake. Etc. So, please, do not rave about some "... REAL Christian charity ..." At least in the U.S. it is all quite simple, churches are tax shelters par excellence. The brain-softening task has been successfully taken over by Television.
Mr. Van O, Carlyle was also eloquent on the same subject.
Mr. Nescio,
As your comments reek of libertarianism, please don't compound your buffoonery by commenting on what Christianity is or isn't. Simply plead your substantial ignorance and move on.
The dynamic Prof. Wilson identifies certainly underlies the modern state and is the justification for its intrusion in all matters personal. While it is annoying and outraging when it involves confiscatory taxation in the name of false charity (state welfarism) it is deadly and destructive when invoked to justify war.
The "out of Iraq, into Darfur crowd" are the current manifestation of this ideology. Sending others off to die and spending others' money to justify one's moralism certainly is a modern American pathology.
American Conservative has a revealing article on Darfur in its current issue. The ignorance of foreign affairs demonstrated by this crowd is exceeded only by their ignorance of our constitution and real morality.
"...The ignorance of foreign affairs demonstrated by this crowd is exceeded only by their ignorance of our constitution and real morality. ..."
Congratulations, Mr. Bill Wilder, your seeming ignorance about what you are talking here is clearly exceeded by your remarkable stupidity.
Mr. Nescio, if that is your real name and not one you hide behind, I would be gratified if you would refrain hereafter from comments on anything I write here.
Since no one has said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," I'll say it.
America's slogan should be: If you dunno how or aren't willing to do what is necessary to fix your own problems, focus on someone else's and hope your own go away.
On second thought, "absentee moralism" sounds better.
"This sentimental and hypocritical moralism has been typical of Anglo-Saxon countries at least since the time of Dickens. The great writer criticized those in Britain who agonized over the fate of black slaves in the Caribbean while ignoring the plight of the exploited working class in their own country. "
I believe Dickens had a term for that kind of mindset - Telescopic Philanthropy.
The only people who can address the "genocide in Darfur" is the people of Darfur. As usual Dr. Wilson is right on.
WE have plenty of problems to solve right here in the good old USA. When we get those ironed out then maybe, maybe we can try sharing our concepts with the rest of the world.
Dr. Wilson's wisdom and humility is quite remarkable and I hope he will continue to share it with us.
If each man were to love his neighbor as himself (beginning with those in his home) the concentric circles (both geographical and generational) would take care of the nebulus "WE."
May the Lord Christ protect us from ourselves until He returns to ensure this is done for eternity.
Dr. Wilson, as usual, is 'dead on'. I have read that the entire race issue, from emancipation to civil rights, was not achieved through the will of the people, but through the aggression of the central government. I believe we have the most to fear from those who stoke the flames of emotionalism and fanaticism. Often it is a cover for something else, something to the sole benefit of the elite few. I've read that Thadeus Stevens sought to place the power of the nation in the hands of the northern elite, the bankers and industrialists. He grabbed onto the abolitionist movement only as a 'vehicle' to these ends. Mindless emotionalism (pity) seems to be the driving force for everything happening in the west today. Nietzche had plenty to say about modern pity.
M.A.P.
Agreed on the note of Nietzsche!
The post-modern apologists for Nietzsche, in their revision of him, have missed his profound irony in asserting that "God is dead!" Given the overall state of the Christian Church as the 19th century closed, that was hardly a statement that he actually needed to make to or about the Church. It was rather a statement aimed at positivism, the Darwinian belief in the assent of man and the Marxist belief in dialectic materialism and historical necessity. Even Lenin was smart enough to reinterpret Marxism in light of Nietzsche. Some modern thinkers on Nietzsche have wondered why so few Christian theologians have taken on Nietzsche. It is most likely, I my understanding, because he actually does our work for us: he undermines the viability of positivism, modern or post-modern pity being being one manifestation thereof.
Dr Wilson is right on the money. It is ridiculous that so many worry about others whom they cannot help, as Dr Wilson points out, and ignore those they can and should help, as 'Uncle Outlaw' points out. However, I've said it before on this site, but It seems relevant to mention it here again, there is also the phenomenon of modern Westerners betraying their own kindred and helping alien peoples destroy them, from the West Europeans stabbing the Byzantines in the back, to the betrayal of Rhodesia during the 60's and 70's, not to mention whites who supported or joined the so-called 'civil rights' movements of the late 20th century, to the imposed mass immigration now. What is it that makes so many wish to stab their own kinsmen and/or fellow Christians in the back in favour of the alien, the Moslem, etc? I ask this because I think it is directly tied to the false moralism being discussed here.
I agree with much of what is being said here. Not that we want to be mind numbed robots but unfettered emotive reactions are both dangerous and blinding. I am surprised no one has mentioned this whole illegal/legal immigration debacle. The illegal supporters at least from the American citizenry standpoint is almost solely built on this same emotive action. In addition legal immigration of the last several decades if not since 1965 has also largely been built on this as well. While a certain amount of visas/greencards are issued on skills or other legitimate reasons many are not like the so called annual "diversity lottery" and almost all of the "refugee" visas.
I have mentioned the modern use of the word "we" regarding some morally required action. My experience is that it is used as a form of cowardice or as an attempt to insulate the expounder from actually having to do much about a perceived problem. We, in this case really means that someone else. preferably one who is non-elite and expendable, should take a risk that the speaker will not. It is commonly used in terms of military action, whether in Iraq or in the Sudan. The speaker has no intention of actually fighting in person. I think this comes out of a modern phenomenon of athletic competition. When a bunch of overly steroided thugs defeats another in a football game, the fans of the winning side proudly claim that "We kicked their asses!" These same fans would likely last about 5 seconds out there on the field facing even the losing team. For these sorts of sorry cowards, it is essential that the action take place at a safe distance. Rather than risk their lives working to better the lives of the underclass in their own town, they take the perceived personally safer course of nuking the towelheads in Iran, or fighting oppressive militias in Darfur.
Mr. Berg, I think we can trace the phenomenon back further---into the 18th century. The "antislavery" sentiments of the British and Northern wealthy classes are the classic model of Absentee Moralism.
' If each man were to love his neighbor as himself (beginning with those in his home) the concentric circles (both geographical and generational) would take care of the nebulus “WE.” - Mr. Anderson"
Mr. Anderson has it clearly and biblically correct. Instead of a false Roman Catholic papal 'multiculturalism', the Orthodox Church clearly saw Christian charity as being local, ethnic, and racially unified.
Modern apostates, USING the Church's scriptures, creeds, and pronouncements to enforce a false ideology, (compassionate marxism, as it were- an oxymoron we are all being forced to contend with at this time) have led the vast mass of American Caucasoid Christendom to believe that the unwashed, the unchristian, and the non-White are the equivalents of the 'poor downtrodden' person in the parable of the Good Samaritan. THEY ARE NOT!
As I tell my parishioners, friends, and colleagues, the Samaritans and the Biblical Hebrews were ETHNICALLY related, and the term 'neighbor' as in "Who is my neighbor?" did NOT mean (in Hebrew or Greek, via the LXX) just 'anyone' who happens to be (legally or illegally!) in my 'backyard.' No, THOSE people were the 'goyim' the 'xenos' and had NO part in the command by YHWH to 'love your neighbor as yourself', re-iterated by Christ. Now, if it were a white Canadian, THEN you're talking biblical comparisons. But pagan hordes in Darfur, Somalia, or the lastest 'chic' immigrant plopped in our city by the Catholic Charities or "Lutheran Social[ist] Service?
HELL NO. And that, frankly, it where they belong. NOT destroying Christendom's 'Israel of God' [Gal 6:16]