Cappy

It is rare to encounter an argument without an apology. Most people, when espousing their beliefs, especially if they are controversial, will qualify their points with a haze of In-my-opinion’s, Though-you-may-disagree’s and This-doesn’t-apply-to-everyone-but’s. Any unique or useful principle they come close to sharing is dashed on the rocks of uncertainty and self effacement. But when a speaker or writer ignores these frivolities, his audience is left with no way out, no choice but to listen and reason for themselves, because for once the author has refused to nail his own coffin.

It is mainly for this reason that On Truth is both so refreshing and so difficult to read.

At the beginning of his book Stefan Molyneux warns the reader of what awaits him. That “This book will mess up your life, as you know it.” And though this may first seem a dramatic or arrogant statement, he is right to warn us, and we are right to be afraid.

Focusing primarily on parents and background, Molyneux reveals the nature of the relationships we cherish the most, the relationships we have not chosen, and the unrequited duty and obedience to those relationships. Each of these relationships – family, culture, government, and religion – are bestowed, or rather forced on us at birth, and latch us to their respective codes of behavior. But the foundation of those codes, the source of the morality almost all of us have grown up with and accepted, is a blackout, an empty space.

Parents have the ability to declare right and wrong for their children with no qualifying criteria other than the ability to bear children. Culture attempts to define who you are by telling you who your ancestors were before, and who your brothers are now. The government passes laws that encroach heavily into the areas of morality, with nothing but the concept of patriotism to lean on. And religion, holding veto power over them all, offers the most complete system of morality, and therefore garners the most control.

Through his brief book Molyneux deftly exposes these false moralities for what they are: useless, destructive and evil. Parents with no real concept of virtue turn to religious or cultural definitions (more often that not, an entirely inconsistent hodge-podge of both) to provide a framework for ethical behavior, and in doing so cut off their children from their ability to reason the truth behind action and consequence.

At times, particularly when he discussed religion, I felt certain that Molyneux needed to qualify his statements, to assure us that not all religious figures are seeking a sense of control over their own lives by demanding the obedience of others. But it was quickly apparent what a mistake that would be. Such an abdication would serve as the apology his readers needed, and they would quickly throw themselves into that tiny minority of “not all.” Molyneux is unyielding, and as well he should be, because he is right.

Perhaps his most startling insight is the application by the power hungry of what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victim.” Those who wish to control do so by appealing to right and wrong, sin and virtue. In order to be good, they say, you must do as they command. And in doing so, Molyneux shows us that they are “using goodness in the service of evil.” By appealing to the drive in those under their control to be virtuous and moral, they succeed in fulfilling their own evil ends.

By the end of the book Molyneux leaves no question as to what isn’t a reliable source of virtue and morality. As he points out, we would not trust a doctor who does not heal, and so we should not heed the teachings of the unlearned. I expected that the second half of the book would discuss what should be the source of virtue, and I gather from his epilogue that Molyneux expected that as well. But the books power lies partly in its brevity, so that answer is saved for another read, one I hope to get to as soon as possible.

On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion is available from Lulu as a paperback book or audio download. Stefan Molyneux is the host of Freedomain Radio. (Cross-posted at New Height Books)

The Arts

Neither my roommate nor I are anywhere near being environmentalists, but since the beginning of the drought here in Atlanta (the worst in a century), we’ve done what we could to preserve water. Quick showers, washing dishes by hand, shaving in the sink, bad-mouthing people that water their lawn in secret, etc. But of course, it isn’t water bans or restrictions that is going to solve our problem. Some good common sense would go a lot further.

For instance, if the Army Corps of Engineers hadn’t “accidentally” released 22 billion extra gallons from our biggest water resource, Lake Lanier, last June, that would probably help. But what is much worse is what the Army Corps of Engineers does on purpose, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

Nevertheless, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Army Corps of Engineers continues to drain more than a billion gallons a day from Lake Lanier, Atlanta’s main water source, to release it downstream for an endangered species of mussel.

“The Endangered Species Act is a danger to the human species,” said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. “People find it hard to believe that environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act could really require the sacrifice of human beings to nature. But that is exactly what they have to mean in practice; they mean that in order to sustain some obscure mussel species, the people in Atlanta must go without water.

Environmentalists claim that blaming the mussels is unfair. They say it is just a way of diverting attention from the real causes of the water crisis, which, in their view, are a lack of strict water conservation mandates and the ‘unbridled development’ of metro Atlanta over the last few years.”

Does this seem wrong to anyone who isn’t a dirty capitalist? Because it’s difficult to believe that only people like me are outraged at this. Every news article on the drought is pushing ways people can lower their water usage, but no one in the area is speaking out against this anti-Man nonsense that is going to drain us dry that much faster.

Current Events, Local

The movie release of The Golden Compass is upsetting people on both sides of the religious spectrum. Christians are calling it “anti-God,” and atheists are fuming that the movie has watered down the “anti-God” elements. But come on, even a movie without an explicit religious undertone is a step in the right direction. And listen to my man Bill Donohue of the Catholic League:

They’re intentionally watering down the most offensive element,” Donohue said. “I’m not really concerned about the movie, [which] looks fairly innocuous. The movie is made for the books. … It’s a deceitful, stealth campaign. Pullman is hoping his books will fly off the shelves at Christmastime.

He knows what’s going on. And you can bet the author, Philip Pullman, does too. In books writers can be fearless, they can be open, they can actually say what they mean. But in movies, you have to satisfy a whole room of people at once, an entire demographic at once, rather than the individual watcher. You have to watch what you say and who you say it around. But novel-based movies always, ALWAYS, no matter how bad the movie is, lead to more sales of the book. (That’s why I’m for a movie version of Atlas Shrugged. Even though it is sure to be awful, it is also sure to sell books.)

In discussions over the movie Pullman suggested that the church could be represented by “any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual.” And you can bet that many Christian parents will go far beyond suggested that their children don’t see the movie or read the book, instead choosing to exercise their own curtailment of freedom by forcing their kids to stay away from both.

And even if the movie doesn’t serve as adequate impetus to boycott Pullman, his own words just might. After all, what good Christian could promote a man who doesn’t like C.S. Lewis…

The novelist has said they are in response to C.S. Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia,” the popular children’s fantasy series of which “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” is the first book — written by Lewis to teach Christian ideals to kids.

“I loathe the ‘Narnia’ books,” Pullman has said in previous press interviews. “I hate them with a deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away.” He has called the series “one of the most ugly and poisonous things” he’s ever read.

Christians are even admitting that its a well written story, Donohue even called Pullman “very talented.” But of course, that’s as far as the praise goes, because in the end Christians are cleverly defending their beliefs the only way they can: by snuffing out the competition. In an active mined individual, all ideas are allowed consideration and the best ideas flourish and create the philosophy of that individual. But in a mind closed off to reality and debate, it can only survive by avoiding that which might damage its fragile wall.

This becomes even more apparent in the case of Golden Compass that the book doesn’t specifically attack the concept of God, but rather a “a dogmatic, power-hungry establishment.” Why would anyone not want to hear that? I can only think of one reason.

Quotes from Fox News.

Media