The national breakdown of rational and moral argument


The national breakdown of rational and moral argument: reason and law yields to emotion and the will to power

VIDEO – Gay Marriage and the Breakdown of Moral Argument: A commentary by Fr. Barron –

“Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: “Let’s roll.” ~ US President George W. Bush

See: US President George W. Bush State of the Union (2002) –

“I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

VIDEO – MLK: A Radical Revolution of Values –

VIDEO – 3rd Bn 1st Marines – Fallujah 2004 music by Seether –

VIDEO – Old Star Trek reveals how to destroy New World Order –

Why We Fight – 2005 (full length) –

A friend of mine, who is a philosophy professor and about the same age as I am (= 53), has recently written a series of articles concerning same-sex marriage and the common argument used against it, which he believes contain “the slippery slope” fallacy.

After reading his last article, I left a comment, which is edited and expanded upon here:

Your recent struggle to untangle the reasoning of those who are for or against same-sex marriage reminds me of someone who’s trying to untangle a hopelessly tangled knot.

You’re a rational man living in irrational times. Get a knife and cut the rope.

Peoples today, especially university professors [my friend excluded], are not rational. In the universities, irrationality is praised, because they favor of deconstruction and postmodernism, contra The Enlightenment assumptions of reason and universally applicable moral standards.

Due to the intentional dumbing down of American school children over a period of many years many (most?) peoples are, in fact, quite incapable of reason, and wouldn’t know a valid rational argument if one bit them on the ass.

We live in postmodern times and irrational times. We don’t need or want reasons for doing what we do… we simply want to do them because we feel like doing them. And no one dare say we can’t… or we will label them haters and intolerant bigots.


The concept of “marriage” is up for redefinition via deconstruction; therefore “marriage” is whatever people say it is: same-sex, multiple spouses, and incest, included.

After all, who is to say what marriage is? God? Natural Law? Tradition? Reason? Certainly not, since postmodernism and deconstruction specifically targets these for demolition.

With Sade, Nietzsche, and Foucault we purposely flout Christian moral standards because they don’t exist, and we know it. We are beyond the less enlightened and their made-up “standards” of “good” and “evil”.

As Mill said, liberty invites us to practice experiments in living; therefore any experiment in living anyone wishes to practice and call “marriage” will, should, and must be applauded today… or else we will shame you, publicly… and bully you into submission.

“What’s your next article?” I asked my rational professor friend? “The inanimate object and same-sex marriage argument?”

No doubt the same-sex marriage position will lead down the slippery slope of peoples wanting to marry inanimate objects. And who’s to say a man who marries his toaster is wrong? What standard would we dare use to decry, rather than celebrate, such an act of rebellion against Reason, Tradition, Natural Law, and God? We would celebrate such an act and call those who dared speak against it “intolerant, hidebound moralists.”

VIDEO – Saint Mary’s University Students Assaulted by Pro-Abortion Mob –


“Pro-homosexual activists attacked the Christian Liberty Academy early October 15th – throwing two large, concrete brick pavers through its glass doors with a hate-note attached– and then issued an online statement claiming responsibility for the crime. The attackers demanded that CLA “shut down” a banquet it was hosting later that evening for the “homophobic hate group,” Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). But their main target was pro-family veteran Scott Lively, who was honored at the event.”

‘Gay’ Domestic Terrorism? Pro-Homosexual Militants Attack AFTAH Banquet Host Christian Liberty Academy, Demand Event Be Shut Down –

See: ‘Gay’ Domestic Terrorism? Pro-Homosexual Militants Attack AFTAH Banquet Host Christian Liberty Academy, Demand Event Be Shut Down –


April 24, 2013 – NSFW PHOTOS: Naked feminist protesters drench Catholic archbishop as he prays quietly

Photos of the event show Leonard patiently sitting quietly with his eyes closed and hands folded in prayer as the women empty bottles of water on his head and clothes


April 24, 2013 – FBI video: Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’ “Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views. “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

See: FBI video: Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’ –


Political Correctness

“Political correctness – avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”


“Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts and towards certain religions, beliefs and ideologies, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent. In current usage, the term is primarily pejorative,[1][2] while the term politically incorrect has been used as an implicitly positive self-description. Examples of the latter include the conservative The Politically Incorrect Guide published by Regnery Publishing and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. In these cases, the term politically incorrect connotes language, ideas, and behavior unconstrained by a perceived orthodoxy or by concerns about offending or expressing bias regarding various groups of people.”

See: Political Correctness on Wikipedia:

“Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see: Newspeak) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob”

See: Political Correctness:

“Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a reduced language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression,individualitypeace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as “thoughtcrime,” “crimethink,” or “doublethink.”

See: Newspeak on Wikipedia:


Liberty or libertinism?


“Freedom, the all-too-rare position of being able to think, speak and act independently. Not to be confused with equality, something else that should be more prevalent in the world today.”

See: Urban Dictionary –


“One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker. adjective Morally unrestrained; dissolute.

A libertine is a person who has so much love and self-awareness and lust for life ,that his thinking goes beyond the scope of general morality or mainstream idea.”

See: Urban Dictionary –


“Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways—including some that relate to life under a social contract or to existence in a state of nature, and some that see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual’s roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.”

See: Liberty on Wikipedia:

“A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertines place value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the senses. As a philosophy, libertinism gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Great Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade.”

See: Libertine on Wikipedia:


“Now it should be noted that three accursed consequences follow from this article. The first is that if this is the case there would be do difference whatsoever between God and the devil, as in fact the God whom they invent for us is an idol worse than the devil of hell. The second is that men would no longer have a conscience for abstaining from evil, but like beasts would follow their sensual appetites, without any discretion. The third is that we would be unable to make any judgments, for it would be necessary to find everything good, whether lechery, murder, or stealing, and the worst crimes that we can imagine would have to be viewed as laudable works.” ~ John Calvin

See: Against the Libertines –

Related to LIBERTY


alternative, discretion, druthers [dialect], election, choice, option, pick, preference, selection, volition, way


dependence (also dependance), heteronomy, subjection, unfreedom



abjection, corruptness, debasement, debauchery, decadence, decadency, degeneracy, degenerateness, degeneration, degradation, demoralization, depravity, dissipatedness, dissipation, dissoluteness, libertinage, corruption, perversion, pervertedness, rakishness, turpitude


morality, virtue

Related Words

evil, immorality, sinfulness, villainy, wickedness; filth, gangrene, rot, squalor

Near Antonyms

goodness, morality, righteousness, virtue

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” Saint Paul (Romans 1:28-32)

See: Romans 1 –


“I wanted only to try to live in accord with the promptings which came from my true self. Why was that so very difficult?” ~ Marquis de Sade

“I like children they are tasty.” ~ Albert Fish

The deconstruction and demolition of morals in postModern, postChristian, postConstitutional America:

Natural law succumbs to the will to power.

There is no law.

The will to power trumps the law.

Morals are transcended.

Morals are a vestige of Christianity.

There are no morals.

We are beyond good and evil.

The concept of law is only for weak minded peoples.

The enlightened know we are beyond the law.

All power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Do what thou will, and use the firepower to do it.

car over cliff

Same-sex marriage and the slippery slope? or the reducio ad absurdum?

See: A Philosopher’s Blog –

The Incest Argument & Same-Sex Marriage –

Will Same-Sex Marriage Lead to Bestiality? –

Will Same-Sex Marriage Lead to Fathers Marrying Their Sons? –

Another friend of mine, who is also about the same age as I, wrote an article stating very clearly what I believe to be a more correct assessment the same sex marriage debate. Arguments for same-sex marriage, in reality, are not rational argument at all, but are emotionally driven exercises in the will to political power and it is useless to attempt to reason wit irrational people bent on ramming their political agenda down our throats – an intolerant form of sociopolitical rape – using the power of the state:

“Homosexuals want to overturn the moral order, and that includes anybody who disagrees with them. It’s never been about love or equal rights. (No one is permitted to marry someone of the same sex. The prohibition is applied equally.) It’s always been about domination. It’s no longer “live and let live”; it’s believe the way we do or you will pay for your resistance, and resistance is futile.”

Source: Aggression and Discrimination Against Anti-Homosexual Opinion Escalate –

Two theories exist that we, as a society, can choose to become the legal and philosophical basis for our society: natural law or the will to power.

These are the only two choices that exist for us.

The ancient philosopher Socrates was unpopular with many people for one reason: he took people’s philosophical positions to their logical (and often absurd) conclusions, which most people simply didn’t enjoy facing. In his dialogue with Gorgias (recounted for us by Plato), Socrates took Gorgias’ theory of justice to its logical and absurd conclusion: that might makes right. Against Gorgias, Socrates believed that justice transcended humankind, because it was eternal and divine.


In short, these two ancient understandings of justice are the same two theories of justice that we, today, have to build our society upon: natural law (= justice is eternal and divine) and the will to power (= justice is an illusion).

I’ve pointed out (elsewhere) the logical and absurd conclusions of the will to power as demonstrated by the tawdry “philosophy” of Michel Foucault, based as it was upon Frederick Nietzsche’s “enlightened” concept of the transcendence of such “weak-minded” categories as “good” and “evil” and its concomitant will to power “ethic”.

The will to power theory of “justice” leads, inexorably, to the domination of the weak by the strong, the oppression of the weak by the strong, and the Sadistic sexual torture of the weak by the strong (simply for the evil enjoyment of the strong).

Sound like anyone (or any nation) you know?


Concerning the dramatic contrast between the ethical theories of Dr. King and Frederick Nietzsche, the late Boston University professor Roger Shattuck has said,

“A succinct and unflinching answer to Nietzsche arose out of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s resolve to protect the civil rights struggle from the forces of radical black violence. In ‘Where Do We Go from Here?’—his 1967 Presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—King picks out as one of the great errors in history the interpretation of power and love as polar opposites and the association of power with violence. King cut to the core of the matter with a no-nonsense simplification:

‘It was this misinterpretation that caused Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject the Nietzschean philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian idea of love. Now, we’ve got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice.’ (Martin Luther Kink, Jr., A Testament of Hope, p. 247)

“King was not just playing games with the words love and power. He was reaching back to a series of his own earlier readings (above all, in Paul Tillich) and writings and to his experience as intellectual and tactical leader of the civil rights movement. ‘To get this thing right’ meant to King an appeal to a long-mediated and carefully defined philosophic position: the philosophy of non-violence . . . These two prophets, Nietzsche and King, confront us with a continuing struggle between power and justice that no thinking person can responsibly turn away from.”

Source: Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography; p. 303


No rational American citizen can responsibly turn away from our civic and moral obligation—our duty—to put our nation upon a proper course of justice. However,, it seems the emotional Americans using brute force, which is often covered with a thin rhetorical veneer of “justice”, are prevailing.

Until we realize the abuse which occurred (and is still occurring) at Abu Ghraib (and many other dungeons as well) was not the result of “a fews bad apples” but was in fact a celebration of sexual violence, torture, and murder – at the ontological level – we will never be free of the evils our “government” is perpetrating upon us, and upon the world.

The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos:

VIDEO – Joshua Casteel: “To Love One’s Enemies” –

“The Marquis de Sade produced graphic celebrations of sexual violence, incest, torture, and murder during a period that encompassed the end of the ancient regime, the French Revolution, and the reign of Napoleon. His most notorious works are a series of novels in which wealthy, powerful “libertines” systematically rape, torture, and kill an assortment of victims—primarily women and adolescents of both sexes—while articulating elaborate philosophical justifications for this behavior. Rejecting the existence of a Supreme Being, Sade posits a lawless and destructive Nature as the only rational guide to behavior; sexual cruelty and the will to power, being natural human impulses, should be fostered rather than discouraged. His reputation inspired the nineteenth-century psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing to attach the author’s name to the concept of sadism, sexual gratification through the infliction of pain on others.”

See: Marquis de Sade:

Fernando Botero - Abu Ghraib

Fernando Botero – Abu Ghraib

We, as a society, have a choice:

We can continue to “live” as we are now, which is to act according to our postmodern intellectual and moral guiding lights: Sade, Nietzsche, and Foucault… or we can act according to our traditional intellectual and moral guiding lights: God, Natural Law, and Dr. M.L. King.

The choice is ours.

“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

See: Re: Violence – Let’s be intellectually honest, for a change… shall we? –

Freedom and tolerance works both ways or it doesn’t work at all.

And it’s not just the same-sex marriage issue… people are calling on another ugly and hateful names while talking past each other concerning virtually every political issue today.

It’s time for peoples to calm down, find common ground, and to live and let live.

VIDEO – Red Ice Radio – Susanne Posel – Hour 1 – Reflections on a World Gone Crazy –

The BSA, LGBT, and haters who hate “haters” –

See: Gay Marriage and Unjust Wars – Gnats and Camels –

See: Is it okay to be gay? –

See: Re: Same-sex marriage and the Chick-Fil-A Flap –

VIDEO – That Crazy Moment When A Progressive And A Tea Partier Are In Complete Agreement –



About ajmacdonaldjr

writer, author, blogger
This entry was posted in Character Assassins, Charity, Crime, Culture, Ethics, Government, Law, Media, Mind Control, Philosophy, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Religion, Society, Symbolism, Violence and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s