-Caveat Lector-
Oh how I hate Libertarians.
To actually complain about altruism is so twisted it could only
spring from the philosophy of that ugly evil bitch Ayn Rand.
And denying the relevance of moral relativism among humans is
absurd. This phony Emile Zola has his head entirely screwed on
backwards.
Joshua2
see bottom.
> -----
> Laissez Faire City Times
> May 31, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 22
> Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Moral Relativism: The Phantom Menace
>
> a movie review by Lauren Bain
>
> I attended the Houston opening of Star Wars on my 25th birthday. The
> Jedis were good and Darth Vader was bad, and the Force was everywhere.
> Two weeks shy of my 48th birthday, I attended Episode I: The Phantom
> Menace at a Seattle theater that would be at home on Endor. The Jedis
> are getting surly, Darth Vader is nine and irresistibly winsome, and the
> Force is too much with us.
>
> George Lucas is undeniably a cinematic genius of sweeping creativity and
> impact. What a shame he gladhands with altruism and moral relativism. I
> cannot help but compare Star Wars with Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. The
> Trekkers who roamed the known universe were true heroes: They saved
> themselves, they defended free trade and the rule of law, and they told
> gangbangers to get the hell out of the way. Lucas's champions run around
> in medieval robes, besmirch reason in favor of instinct, and commune
> with the Force—though they seem not to know it very well, for they miss
> the rather enormous reality of the existence of the Siths, their evil
> counterparts who sport very Gothic drag, wield double-ended light
> sabers, vault nuclear reactors, and generally are a real nuisance to the
> freedom-loving universe.
>
> So much for trusting your feelings, Luke.
>
> What a dismal sense of life we see in Lucas's galaxy: humans are the
> slaves of corrupt gambling lords, led by Jobba the Hutt, who looks like
> a cross between Humpty Dumpty and a blowfish, and who would just as soon
> bite off your head and spit it out at a gong as look at you.
>
> Fetching little Anakin Skywalker is a slave who lives with his mom (who
> really can't explain his paternity, but the Force has its ways, and it
> evidently did with her) on the bleak planet Tatooine, that would make
> Winslow, Arizona look like Hollywood on New Year's Eve. He's a clever
> lad with big blue eyes, long blond bangs, and a doom-filled destiny.
> Down come a couple of Jedi knights needing a few space ship parts, along
> with a wise and beautiful 14-year-old democratically elected queen
> cleverly disguised as her handmaiden. She effects this disguise by not
> putting on her Elizabeth I white pancake makeup and leaving her
> hair—normally done up to resemble Roman plumbing—down. The Jedi give
> little Anakin a blood test and determine not only that he is one of
> them, but a master of masters. Anakin wins his freedom in a pod race,
> and goes off to Jedi training camp with his new friends. Mom has to stay
> home and be a slave ("My future is here"), but Anakin vows to return and
> free her. If he can. He thinks. Mom commends him for "giving all to
> those who had none." Shmi Skywalker gives all she has, too—Anakin—and
> now has nothing but a future of slavery to endure alone among her
> fish-faced masters. Ugh.
>
> Anakin is his mother's son, a true altruist. And to his credit, Lucas
> understands that the flip side of altruism is evil tyranny. Anakin, of
> course, grows up to be Darth Vader, dark lord of the Siths. He murders,
> tortures, plunders, blows up other people's planets, and systematically
> destroys most of his once-fellow Jedi. But he does all this only because
> he's caught in the grip of the dark side of the Force, not because he's
> evil.
>
> That's the trouble. Lucas refuses to make Darth Vader evil. In the final
> episode, Darth Vader pitches the true evil genius, the Emperor of the
> Terribly Haggard Eyes, down the reactor and saves his own son, whom he
> has sought to destroy for at least three episodes. The Lord of Darkness
> is redeemed. He dies without his helmet on in the middle of a touching
> father-and-son reunion, but his holographic projection is nonetheless
> welcome at his children's victory party where they celebrate the
> restoration of freedom, peace, and prosperity in the galaxy. I can tell
> you that if my Dad blew up my home planet and killed all the best people
> in the galaxy and made a general evil nuisance of himself, he would not
> be invited to my
>
> party. But moral relativism demands so much more largesse. It demands
> forgiveness of evil—abnegation of the very concept of evil. Lucas
> expects us to get off Darth Vader's case. Little Anakin, after all, was
> such a sweetie, and the wise and beautiful 14-year-old democratically
> elected queen had a definite thing for him. He was good by nature. Never
> mind his subsequent actions.
>
> Perhaps, Virginia, there are Siths out there. But they are not bogeys
> with horns and tattoos and double-ended light sabers. They are rotten
> philosophy: they are, specifically, moral relativism. Good fantasy does
> not attempt to obscure that reality, and very sadly, The Phantom Menace
> does.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lauren Bain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is a Seattle-area Libertarian and a
> columnist/book reviewer for the Association of Objectivist Businessmen
> News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why businessmen should be forbidden to take part in society
except
to buy and sell shoes.
This self serving monstrosity complains that the child's mother is
altruistic
TO HER OWN CHILD! I hope Lauren is not a female. This twisted
monstrosity
complains that the Queen is democratically elected and serves the
interests
of her people. What's wrong with that?
What kind of defective, diseased personality finds a philosophy this
unnatural
attractive?
And yet this person has the nerve to discuss morals. Whether one likes
it or
not, morals are always relative. They are relative because they evolve
with
a particular culture. Different cultures evolve different morals for
the purpose
of social cohesion and longevity. There are no universal morals as
Christian
chauvinists would have us believe. They just want their morals forced
on other
cultures whether they benefit that culture or not. The forced
conversion of
the Indians of the Americas did not only NOT help them survive, it
helped
exterminate them.
Example: In Western cultures the basic unit of survival in their
specialized
economies is the family. The family however is susceptible to breakup
if the
either of the parents are tempted by extra marital sex. So taboos are
insti-
tutionalized and become " morals." The society accepts these morals
and sees
their value, and enforces them.
Eskimos on the other hand, had to develop different survival taboos
because
their culture evolved in a different environment. When a stranger
entered an
Eskimo home, he was offered the wife as a sleeping companion. What?
Hasn't
he heard of the commandment " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
ass?"
Why would the mate of the female do such a thing?
Because of the huge distances and hardships and loneliness of
traveling in
the north, men did not have access to their women or any women that
often.
Rather than risk the death of the husband/hunter due to the desire for
the
female by a strange male, the culture undermines the potential deadly
rivalry
by making it a moral duty to offer the female to the strange male. By
doing
so there is no need to fight or kill the husband/hunter who is vital
to the
survival of that family and its economy. This is moral relativism at
work.
Moral absolutists are self centered and self aggrandizing bigots
trying
to force their relative morals on others whether they are valid or
not.
It's not surprising that this sick individual is so removed from
nature,
that altruism and moral relativism, two basic survival mechanisms are
put
forth as negatives, and the Randian concept of "greed is good" replces
them. Greed is good is the philosophy of businessmen. If you want to
see
how good it really is, look around and see what has become of a
country
run by businessmen.
This is what Objectivist Libertarianism does to the brain.
It's really sick.
Joshua2
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
