Some of the most dangerous people are those who are intellectually stunted and indoctrinated in extreme, regressive conservatism. Absolutely the most dangerous, though, are those who have a superior intellect and who are indoctrinated in extreme, regressive conservatism. The phrase, regressive conservatism, is misleading. A different (and perhaps new) term, regressivism, more correctly describes the extreme, fascist-tinted political, social, and fiscal philosophies of people who cluster near the far-right end (the barbarism sector) of the humanitarianism scale. Intellectually advanced regressives can argue their viewpoints persuasively, despite the fact that their foundational philosophical assumptions often are invalid; the unindoctrinated intellectually stunted are easily swayed by them. Their persuasive capabilities are the pillars of their intense threats to modern society. Confounding the problem is the fact that regressives call themselves conservatives; and the rest of us let them get away with it. We lump them (who I’ll call rabid regressives) with the much more traditional conservatives. Traditional conservatives’ philosophies may differ from those of us who are left-leaning but, at least, whose philosophies are measured along the same spectrum. Rabid regressives claim to be conservative in their philosophies, but in my view they are as different from conservatives as are liberals/progressives. Conservatives and liberals exist in the same universe; rabid regressives exist in a parallel universe in which everything is broken and can be repaired only by wealthy overlords. These thoughts are leading nowhere. But perhaps they may be used to persuade actual conservatives to escape the parallel universe and return to the real world.
+++
What would Jesus do? What would Attila the Hun do? What would Buddha do? What would Jeffrey Dahmer do? Role models abound—but do we really understand what we are doing when we deliberately decide to put ourselves inside the head of someone else (or even a fictional character) and behave the way we think they would? Is it not a bit presumptuous to think we have a clue as to how they might behave in a specific set of circumstances? I realize, of course, the concept of following the teachings or behaviors of a role model is meant to guide our own thinking about morality. I question whether we need to imitate or mimic someone else. If humans are innately moral (an altogether different question), models should be unnecessary. If we are not, what obligations do we have to conform to parameters of behavior that go against nature? If professional ethics (and personal morality) were not an issue, I would like to arrange for a number of sets of infants to be reared in two different environments: One would be exposed to “normal” socialization, including teaching about right and wrong, morality in general, etc.; the other would be reared without such teachings. At some predetermined age, the children’s
morality quotient (for lack of another term) would be measured. Alas, professional ethics prohibits such experimentation.
+++
A friend sent me a link to an intriguing concert by an exceptional young Norwegian musician who performs and records under the name Aurora; her full name is Aurora Aksnes. Listening to her sing reminds me of the Irish singer-songwriter who records and performs as Enya. Though quite different in many ways, both of them have ethereal voices that pair perfectly with the accompanying music. More about her at her Wikipedia page; to watch (listen to several pieces at the least), here is a YouTube video:
