| by
Phillip D. Collins ©, June 22nd, 2006 - In
the Masonic "bible," Morals and
Dogma, Albert Pike writes: ". . .no
human being can with certainty say. . .what
is truth, or that he is surely in possession
of it, so every one should feel that it is
quite possible that another equally honest
and sincere with himself, and yet holding
the contrary opinion, may himself be in
possession of the truth. . . "(160)
Evident in this statement is the overall
relativistic Weltanschauung of Freemasonry.
This Weltanschauung is the dominant paradigm
among all correlative elitist groups as
well. As adherents to relativism, the ruling
class rejects absolute truths and moral
certainties. Over the years, this
Weltanschauung has been vigorously
promulgated by the elite and, thus, has
become the dominant paradigm of society. The
mantra of "Do what thou wilt" is
continually reiterated by academia, the
media, and pop culture. With each successive
generation, humanity continues its
inexorable drift towards amorality. Of
course, this drift serves the interests of
the ruling class. The further away humanity
drifts from morality, the closer it drifts
towards enslavement. C.S. Lewis reiterated
this contention in Christian Reflections:
The very idea of freedom presupposes some
objective moral law which overarches rulers
and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values
is eternally incompatible with democracy. We
and our rulers are of one kind only so long
as we are subject to one law. But if there
is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any
society is the creation of its rulers,
educators and conditioners; and every
creator stands above and outside his own
creation. (81)
Amorality facilitates the dialectic of
freedom followed by Draconian control (Jones
15). With the enshrinement of moral
relativism, society invariably assumes a
progressively more anarchistic trajectory.
Impulses are entertained and excesses are
indulged. Meanwhile, objective moral law is
increasingly disregarding. Eventually,
individual liberties are subordinated to
hedonist appetites. Fleeting pleasures are
ravenously sought, even at the expense of
others. The ensuing chaos provides a pretext
for the imposition of authoritarian policies
to restore order. Of course, there is always
a self-appointed elite that establishes and
benefits from such systems.
Paradoxically, the power elite is equally
as amoral as those they would fetter in the
name of the law. Ruling class thought is
permeated with relativistic notions. It is
just such relativism that allows the
oligarchs to believe that they can act as
the arbiters of the dominant societal ethos.
It comes as little surprise that Oxford
Professor Carroll Quigley, a self-avowed
elitist and apologist for the ruling class,
rebuked the lower classes for their
rejection of "complex relativisms"
(Quigley 980). Of course, Quigley's
endorsement of "complex
relativisms" was irreconcilable with
his endorsement of an absolutist world
oligarchy. After all, one cannot lay claim
to an absolute right to rule if there are no
absolutes at all.
In addition to promoting amorality,
relativism encourages the embracing of
irrationality. The problem with relativism
is a systemic one, a dilemma intrinsic to
the view itself. Relativism is predicated
upon the contention that there are no
absolutes. Yet, if there are no absolutes,
then one cannot absolutely declare that
there are no absolutes. In fact, declarative
statements cannot exist because they are
statements of fact. Facts are absolutes and,
according to relativism, do not exist.
Immediately, the position implodes, crushed
by its own intrinsic irrationality.
Relativism is a self-refuting philosophical
position.
However, Darwinism cosmetically
obfuscated the irrationality that blemished
relativistic Weltanschauungs. By undermining
the foundations of Christianity with
so-called "scientific proof,"
Darwinism banished moral absolutes and
edified the unstable premises upon which
relativism tottered. In The Outlines of
History, H.G. Wells writes:
If all animals and man evolved, then
there were no first parents, no paradise, no
fall. And if there had been no fall, then
the entire historic fabric of Christianity,
the story of the first sin, and the reason
for the atonement collapses like a house of
cards. (616)
With Christianity's "house of
cards" effectively toppled,
relativistic ideas could be actively
promulgated with less resistance. Such ideas
were certainly nothing new and had been
promoted before by ideologues like Hume,
Bacon, Rousseau, Descartes, Kant, and
Weishaupt (Jasper 262). Yet, Darwinism was
different. Cribbed from Freemasonic doctrine
and promoted through the British Royal
Society, Darwin's theory of evolution
promised to "scientifically"
legitimize relativistic Weltanschauungs.
This included, of course, the relativistic
outlook of the Royal Society's would-be
sculptors of a new societal ethos. The
nature of this emergent ethos becomes
apparent [when] one considers the
technocratic proclivities of the Royal
Society's early Masonic founders.
In light of these observations, it
becomes clear that Darwinism was an
epistemological weapon developed for the
technocratic restructuring of society. Jane
H. Ingraham elaborates:
But Darwin's role was to dignify
[relativistic] these ideas with
"scientific" backing and to make
them accessible to the average man in terms
he could understand. His shattering
"explanation" of the evolution of
man from the lower animals through means
excluding the supernatural delivered the
coup de grace to man's idea of himself as a
created being in a world of fixed truth.
Confronted with the "scientific
proof" of his own animal origin and
nature, Western man, set free at last from
God, began the long trek through scientific
rationalism, environmental determinism,
cultural conditioning, perfectibility of
human nature, behaviorism, and secular
humanism to today's inverted morality and
totalitarian man. (Qutd. In Jasper 262)
As the "objective moral law which
overarches rulers and ruled alike"
continued to disappear with the belief in a
transcendent God, human society began to
witness the rise of "totalitarian
man." Of course, the rise of relativism
also saw the rise of mass irrationality.
This mass irrationality, which is the
natural corollary of relativistic thought,
is especially prevalent in orthodox
academia. This irrationality was most
vividly illustrated during a discussion
between Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias
and a group of students at Oxford
University. Zacharias relates the details of
this shocking discourse:
I asked a group of skeptics if I took a
baby and sliced it to pieces before them,
would I have done anything wrong? At my
question, there was silence, and then the
lead voice in the group said, "I would
not like it, but no, I could not say you
have done anything wrong." My! What an
aesthete. He would not like it. My! What
irrationality--he could not brand it wrong.
(115)
What irrationality indeed! It is
especially ironic that the very same school
of skepticism that repeatedly asks the
question, "How can there be a good God
when there is so much evil in the
world." How can one reject the
existence of God on such grounds when one
rejects moral absolutes in the same breath?
Such thinking has been commensurate with the
rise of scientific dictatorships during the
20th century.
On November 29, 1994, Stone Phillips
conducted an interview [with the] infamous
serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. During the
interview, Dahmer made a rather revealing
confession:
"If a person doesn't think there is
a God to be accountable to, then--then
what's the point of trying to modify your
behavior to keep it within acceptable
ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I
always believed the theory of evolution as
truth, that we all just came from the slime.
When we, when we died, you know, that was
it, there is nothing. . ." (No
pagination)
If this is how far humanity has traveled
beyond the moral Rubicon, then the next step
that the evolutionary Weltanschauung will
take man is frightening indeed. Time and
time again, history has demonstrated the
consequences of relativistic thought.
Perhaps the best historical example can be
found in the Scriptures. Presented with a
sinless man who was the obvious target of a
malevolent conspiracy, Pilate merely
responded, "What is truth?" (John
18:38). In the book Life of Christ, Fulton
J. Sheen offers an eloquent summation of
this response and its ramifications:
Then he [Pilate] turned his back on
truth--better not on it, but on Him Who is
Truth. It remained to be seen that tolerance
of truth and error in a stroke of
broadmindedness leads to intolerance and
persecution; "What is truth?" when
sneered, is followed up with the second
sneer, "What is justice?"
Broadmindedness, when it means indifference
to right and wrong, eventually ends in a
hatred of what is right. He who was so
tolerant of error as to deny an Absolute
Truth was the one who would crucify Truth.
It was the religious judge who challenged
Him, "I adjure thee;" but the
secular judge asked, "What is
truth?" He who was in the robe of the
high priest called upon God the things that
are God's; he who was in the Roman toga just
professed a skepticism and doubt. (364)
Pilate's question was a rhetorical one,
inferring that truth did not exist.
Meanwhile, the Truth stood right before him,
enveloped in a profound silence. Still, it
was easier for Pilate to resort to the
frivolity of pragmatism and utilitarianism.
Despite the clear absence of evidence to
convict this guiltless man of any crime,
judicial protocol was circumvented and He
was crucified. Of course, the Truth did not
remain buried for very long.
Over two thousand years later, it would
appear as though man has come no further. As
moral absolutes are jettisoned in favor or
relativism, technocratic social engineers
continue to shape a totalitarian ethos. In
Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley
wrote:
. . .a new Social Ethic is replacing our
traditional ethical system. . .the system in
which the individual is primary. …the
social whole has greater worth and
significance than its individual parts. .
.that the rights of the collectivity take
precedence over. . .the Rights of Man. (23)
Nietzsche's world "beyond good and
evil" is more closely akin to Skinner's
world, which is "beyond freedom and
dignity." As the moral Rubicon is
traversed, so is the line separating freedom
from slavery. It is a scientific
dictatorship, dignified by Darwinism and
built on the ashes of morality.
Sources Cited
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited.
New York: Bantam Books, 1958.
Jasper, William F. Global Tyranny. . .Step
by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging
New World Order.
Appleton, Wisconsin: Western Islands
Publishers, 1992. Jones, E. Michael. Libido
Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political
Control.
South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press,
2000.
Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Pike,
Albert. Morals and Dogma. 1871. Richmond,
Virginia: L.H. Jenkins, Inc., 1942.
Quigley, Carroll.Tragedy and Hope: A History
of the World in our Time. New York:
Macmillan, 1966.
Sheen, Fulton J. Life of Christ. New York:
McGraw-Hill,1958.
Wells, Herbert George. The Outline of
History: Being a Plain History of Life and
Mankind. London: Cassell and Company Ltd.,
1925. Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other
Gods. Nashville, Tennessee: Word Publishing,
2000.
|
