MASS MIGRATION AND REVERSING THE POLARITY OF MORALITY

by Duns Scotus

On a certain level morality is merely rationalization for what you want to do anyway. If you’re into paedophilia then, of course, you are suddenly intrigued by the issues and science surrounding infant intelligence and volition, as well as religious systems that seem more accommodating to it. If fucking sheep is your thing, you may wish to point out the “plausible idea” that killing them is already morally acceptable, so why not something they might even enjoy? If rent boys float your boat – and you want them cheap and keen – then you may be inclined to see the “moral utility” of ensuring that the migrant boats to Europe keep floating.

But morality is rationalization only on a certain level, because there is actually an absolute level where morality is connected to absolutes, and where there is no justification at all for fiddling with three-year olds, fucking sheep, or buggering doe-eyed bacha boys. Unfortunately, this absolute level requires much more intellectual rigour than most people are capable of, so morality is effectively an emotional dimension.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GUN CONTROL (AND OTHER POLITICAL AFFECTATIONS)

by Michael Parish

In America, the discussion of political issues is an endless and perpetually inconclusive cycle: Party mouthpieces formulate stock arguments, and the media disseminates them to the rank and file, who then absorb and regurgitate them. They are then repeated ad nauseam whenever a well-publicized event returns the question to the limelight. Solutions are never discovered. This has been standard procedure for at least the last three generations, which, incapable of seeing outside the narrow parameters of bipartisan debate, accept it as the norm. But why?

Politics is not an academic discipline and does not involve the abstractions of that milieu; its matters and its terms are direct and concrete. Its subjects are familiar on a functional level to the majority of the population. If objective truth does exist then the questions being asked in the political milieu should end in objective answers. If Americans can calculate solutions to algebraic equations, they should certainly be able to do the same for poverty, crime, energy, and healthcare.

This has not happened, from which I infer two things: (1) that Americans are truly ignorant of what they speak about politically; and (2) their reason for engaging in political debate is self and partisan promotion, not the actual search for solutions.