The Subjectivist’s Nescience on Morality

Renowned author C.S. Lewis feared the encroaching trend of scientism, by and large lauded in the education system of his time starting from elementary school, chipping away beliefs in objective moral values. Rather than education seeking to improve young people by both educating them with factual knowledge and honing the sensitivity of their sentiments, students began to be tutored in facts alone. This shift was thought to benefit youth, protecting them from the emotional sway of propaganda. But Lewis states that not only did dropping an emphasis on sentiment fail to provide this protective effect (and in fact made students more susceptible to hype and disinformation), it atrophied their capacity for virtue and moral excellence.

In his classic work ‘The Abolition of Man’, Lewis acknowledged a troubling impasse brewing within himself – that of reconciling his self between the crossfires of two worlds, one in which facts ruled without a trace of value, and the other where feelings reigned without one trace of truth or falsehood.

The book itself is a debate he has with himself. Lewis claims that certain things around us should elicit certain responses, unlike the subjectivist’s claim that things have no inherent value in it. But a fatal flaw lies here – subjectivism itself is objectively true, and hence it’s claims on ‘value’ is itself self-defeating.

Objective value is a premise, not a conclusion. Especially for atheists, they have to assume value is objective before they experience it. Lewis quotes the Aristotelian idea ‘The aim of education is to make the people like and dislike what he ought to like and dislike.

Plato before him had said the same. Humans will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful.

The man who scoffs at the brave deeds of a soldier, decides that attending his friend’s father’s funeral would be too much of a hassle, or fails to say thank you for a gift, shows the lack of this kind of education of the sentiments.

Lewis states, “For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes.”

Hence Lewis’ famous quote, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.

What he connotes here is that often the subjectivist scoff at value systems, family, tradition, and moral virtues, and yet they vainly demand the function by removing the organ. They mock at sexual self control, but be shocked when they see sexual perpetrators rising in their midst.

The subjectivists have no moral totem poles to define conceptions of morality. As there is no common yardstick of moral persuasion, they strong arm people by out-protesting into sharing their views whether they like it or not. This explains the crowd-bullying for which Twitter is famous.

In a world of subjectivism, the loudest or the most obstreperous pushes over conflicting ideas, even if it is morally right and virtuous. Here, objective values of morality are set aside and the mightiest lays the laws, even if it is downright asinine.

Might becomes right. Power in the modern world isn’t anything like power of the bygone era. True political power rests in those with the most sway in media outlets and politics.

The result is Emotivism – people shouting at each other without reaching an authoritative conclusion.

And that is exactly how perverse sexual notions are pushed on to the mainstream public without any qualms of moral contrition.

The growing trend of cultural Marxism howls it’s deathly throes to uproot the fundamental omphalos of a society – nuclear family systems.

How could Marx, who claimed himself to be the unselfish champion of the working classes (but in fact himself was the one who bowed down to a golden calf focused on money, gold, and property), retain his cognomen for such cultural revolutions?

Marx sought to overthrow the economic framework of a society completely to instantiate an idiotic idea where the selected few owns all properties and the rest are decried as slaves whose freedom is defined by whatever these Communist overlords decreed.

Marx’s resentment of the rich echoed glaringly in his works, and his championing of the working class was merely a smokescreen to hide his vicious intentions.

He was the one who implored his minions to butcher down any who resisted this inane idea.

“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you,” Marx wrote in May 1849. “When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” Marx added, “There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

Marx was hideously arrogant enough to propose a solution to the miseries of the world by abolishing all forms traditions, cultures, religious devotions, law, politics and to finally “establish the truth of this world.” What truth? That truth, alas, was Marx’s “truth.” And he saw the criticizing and abolishment of religion as the first step towards the “criticism of everything.”

The criticism of everything is what’s exactly happening now in the realm of cultural and sexual norms; the nascent point of which was early in the twentieth century, where from the smoldering embers of Marxist-Leninist theory, arose a fiery field of fanatics who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School.

These Marxists were all about culture and sex. They concocted inane ideas of Freud with the malignant ideas of Marx to create a perverse and malevolent creed – one bordering on resentment and spite to the order mandated by God on humanity. This concoction is often called neo-Marxism. These neo-Marxists are all about sex. They seek to tear down traditional institutions and norms to remake society ground-up.

Integrating the extraordinarily bad but influential twentieth century ideas of Sigmund Freud with the extraordinarily bad but influential nineteenth-century teachings of Karl Marx was no match made in heaven.

The noxious Marx had conjured up the most toxic ideas of the nineteenth century, whereas the neurotic Freud had cooked up the most infantile ideas of the twentieth century.

These Frankfurt leaders avariciously eyed the universities as the home-base to propagate their ideas – along with the media and the film industry in later years. These would be the conveyor belts to deliver the fundamental transformation. Marx and Freud were the gods who, they were sure, would not fail them.

And among many unscrupulous ideologues that were heavily swayed by these inane ideas – two of them deserves special recognition for their especial social contributions, namely Wilhelm Reich & Kate Millet.

Wilhelm Reich – The Veteran Addict.

Perusing Reich’s early life as a sex addict is key as to why he defended his positions on normalizing perverse behaviours, and I expect the reader to use his own volition to gain further clarity as elucidating his perverse acts here is itself an act of wading through execrable twaddle.

Wilhelm Reich was the man who coined the term “The Sexual Revolution”, and who was also the author of a seminal work by the same name. The book, which fanned the flames of that very revolution, is a sick piece of work which was initially banned in the USA in 1954.

Reich by then was well on his way in search of a grand unifying theory of Freudianism and Marxism. For instance, he insisted not only that “sexual intercourse during puberty is a natural and self-evident need” but that “the sexual needs of infants and adolescents are completely natural and justified.” Yes, _newborn infants_.

Wilhelm Reich, Freudian-Marxist, had launched a sexual revolution to obliterate the family, and thereby facilitate the destruction of religious values. Ultimately, the hope was to achieve the breakdown of Western civilization by destroying the familial transmission belt by which values are passed on from one generation to the next.

Kate Millet – The Feminist Heroine

The author of ‘Sexual Politics’ and one of the leading feminists of the 1960s and 1970s. Kate was not only a feminist but a Marxist.

The book became a cultural juggernaut when published in 1970. She decried the “patriarchy” of the monogamous nuclear family and praised homosexuality in all it’s glory.

The book landed Kate on the cover of Time magazine on August 31, 1970. Her angry book served as the bible, the feminist-Marxist manifesto, of women’s lib. The New York Times referred to Sexual Politics as “the Bible of Women’s Liberation.”

Kate’s sister, Mallory Millet, has publicly blamed Kate Millet for abusing and even threatening to kill her.

Mallory states that she and her mother often suffered from the narcissistic emotional tantrums, bordering on psychopathy, from her sister.

Tellingly, her sister, Mallory Millet, offers a glimpse as to who Kate Millet really was.

On one occasion, Mallory went to one of Kate’s ‘feminist’ gathering in New York, thus becoming an eyewitness not only to how unhinged the left had become but to what was festering within the culture rotted by the maggot of Marxist ideology.

Mallory remembers:

I stayed with Kate … in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.” It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back and forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in the Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?” …
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Interestingly, these proponents of sexual freedom have a keen insight as to why they are proposing their creed onto others.

Mallory watched it unfold and unravel. She also witnessed the cultural wreckage. Today she speaks tragically of encountering women in their fifties and sixties who fell for this “creed” in their youth and now cry themselves to sleep many countless nights grieving for the children that they will never have and that they “coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back.” “Where are my children?” they cry to Mallory. “Where are my grandchildren?”

Those children were sacrificed at the feminist altar of abortion.

“Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!” Mallory has heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.” The man fell into despair and ruin. The children were stunted and deeply harmed.

Where are they headed next?

The education system in the US finds itself in an immoral quagmire of a hole. Somehow extreme sexualization and LGBTQ+ indoctrination of children at younger and younger ages in public schools is seen as really normal.

Children under the age of 10 are displayed genitalia on screens to aid them in ‘gender identity’ and to brainwash them with nonsensical gender ideas.

Children aged 12-14 are encouraged to engage in sexual intercourse with both sexes and also in risky gender-altering surgeries.

Sex-ed is aimed at undermining the very building blocks of society.

In the not-too-distant past, so-called sex-education for young children and normalizing gender confusion in tax-funded schools would have been unthinkable and even criminal.

Today, the most extreme forms of sex education imaginable—including encouraging young children to engage in fornication, homosexual behaviors, sodomy, group sex, abortions, and even “sex-change” surgeries—is a reality in the United States and beyond.

Children have to get parent’s consent for taking aspirin in schools, but injecting them with sex-altering hormones is done by teachers without even taking the consult of their parents, and if questioned, labelled with homophobia.

But the worst is yet to come. If the well-funded sex-education behemoth gets its way, sexualization of children in schools masquerading as “health” and “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) will undermine and uproot societal order from it’s roots. Depression and crime will increase, as is proved by countless researchers.

Family structures and the state of civilization are all in the cross-hairs now. The stakes could not be higher.

Kimberly Ells, author of “The Invincible Family” and a longtime researcher and activist against the global sexualization of children, warned that these sex-ed programs are undermining parental authority, family values, and even family formation by encouraging children to reject their parents’ teachings and view sex as merely a pleasurable “right,” rather than part of a stable marriage.

The results of undermining family and marriage were predictable: over 40 percent of American children are now born out of wedlock, with almost one in four American children now living in a single-parent household.

“Children who become slaves to the sexual appetites of their bodies early are more likely to become slaves in other areas of their lives,” added Ells, who has spoken at the UN.

“The T in LGBT is by far the most problematic,” Ells warned. “Same-sex marriage annihilates the idea that men and women are complementary. But transgenderism annihilates the idea that men and women inherently exist at all.

Legal movements around homosexuality and transgenderism are setting the stage for the “marginalization” of mothers, fathers, and families by law.

When parents’ ties to their children are obscured or weakened, it creates an environment hospitable to government intervention and socialist-communist revolution. That is why Marx’s Communist Manifesto openly called for the ‘abolition of the family. Socialism always wanted to do away with the nuclear family.

Sex education teaches children to dehumanize themselves and to take intimacy and family and marriage out of sex. In short, sex-ed is essentially killing the family.

Sexual revolutionaries in the West have understood this for over a century, too. Reich saw this as a means to obliterate the family, and thereby facilitate the destruction of religious values. Ultimately, the hope was to achieve the breakdown of Western civilization by destroying the familial transmission belt by which values are passed on from one generation to the next.

To that end, Reich strongly encouraged “sex education” in school to “divest parents of their moral authority.”

Unless we hold on to a binding code of morality firmly, the situation is only bound to get worse.

The decline of religious sentiments in the West and the subsequent praise of subjectivist thought is partly to blame for this unchecked adoption of perverse ideas related to sex.

POST-NOTE

Does the condemnation of homosexuality morally give us Muslims justification to insult those who identify as gays? No.

Even if a person calls himself gay or LGBT, acts on it, and has received the message, that person should not be mocked. What Prophet Lut (AS) certainly did not do is call his people names or mock them.

Rather, he expressed care and regard for them — he wanted what was best for them in this life and the next. And his people were highly rebellious, rude, and abusive people.

Being firm on our moral principles does not mean that we have a licence to resort to abuse.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Ranin Ashraf