Posts Tagged ‘Robert Bork’

“Dangerous People are Teaching Your Kids”

July 9, 2018

“Dangerous People are Teaching Your Kids”

I am blogging this video for a second time.

I judge that it is imperative that voting Americans get this message, published by Prager University.

I was blessed to be a professor of psychology for 36 years. I survived in a liberal environment because I did not infuse my psychology courses with political philosophy and I tried to be a good colleague others.

Too many American Universities are now infested with radical leftists professors who use the classroom to teach their students a political philosophy that is antithetical to America’s form of Constitutional governance and Free Market economic system. Also under hot attack from within our universities is our traditional religions, moral values, more’s and folkways.

The following video will fully explain the great contemporary force for America’s undoing and eventual failure that now resides among the professors within our own colleges and universities.

America’s institutions of higher learning have, in many cases, become Marxist revolutionary propaganda machines.

Don’t believe me?… Simply look at the increasing numbers of millennial’s that favor Marxism and the increasing number of politicians who are identifying themselves a socialists. Then please see the video below.

Also, for an accurate in-depth analysis of how all of this and more came about, read Robert Bork’s book: “Slouching Toward’s Gomorrah”.

Wake-Up America!

https://www.prageru.com/videos/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Indiana University South Bend

Advertisements

America: “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”

December 2, 2013

America: “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”

I first learned about the progress of Marxist philosophy in America when I read Robert Bork’s powerful presentation of these historical developments in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (1996).

It was in 1985 as a professor of psychology also maintaining a limited private practice that I became increasingly aware of the decline in the quality of America’s populations’ behavior. I have since worked to describe the psychological/social/cultural and other science based reasons for this decline. It was clear to me that these population behavior problems were early indications of general sociocultural decline.

Therefore, when I encountered Judge Bork’s book a little over a decade later. A very large piece of the puzzle fell into place. Of course I was aware of the massive cultural upheavals of the 1960, as that was the era when I came of age, participating in the Cold War in the submarine service and gaining my education in three different institutions of higher learning. Indeed I was immersed in this period of tectonic shifts in America’s socioculture. Yet, some very important components of the “big picture” had eluded me.

Bork’s own words about his own book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: will best convey this picture.

This is a book about American decline. Since American culture is a variant of the culture of all Western industrialized democracies, it may even, inadvertently, be a c book about Western decline. In the United States, at least, that decline and the mounting resistance to it have produced what we now call a culture war. It is impossible to say what the outcome will be, but for the moment our trajectory continues downward. This is not to deny that much in our culture remains healthy, that many families are intact and continue to raise children with strong moral values. American culture is complex and resilient. But it is also not to be denied that there are aspects of almost every branch of our culture that are worse than ever before and that the rot is spreading.

Culture”, as used here, refers to all human behavior and institutions, including popular entertainment, art, religion, education, scholarship, economic activity, science, technology, law, and morality. Of that list, only science, technology and the economy may be said to be healthy today, and it is problematical how long that will last. Improbable as it may seem, science and technology themselves are increasingly under attack, and it seems highly unlikely that a vigorous economy can be sustained in an enfeebled, hedonistic culture, particularly when that culture distorts incentives by increasingly rejecting personal achievement as the criterion for the distribution of rewards” (p.2).

Bork went on to explain that the enemy was “modern liberalism” which he defined as a form of “radical egalitarianism“. He noted that egalitarianism placed the emphasis on equal outcomes instead of opportunities. Bork also included “radical individualism” as a characteristic of radical liberalism. In his view radical individualism runs in opposition to traditional morality and radical egalitarianism leads to “collectivism because a powerful state is required to suppress the differences that freedom produces” (p. 5).

Bork predicted the future as he clearly identified trends that have only become more deeply entrenched and powerful over the more than twenty years since he published his book.

Modern Liberalism is powerful because it has enlisted our cultural elites, those who man the institutions that manufacture, manipulate, and disseminate ideas, attitudes and symbols–universities, churches, Hollywood, the national press (print and electronic), foundation staffs, the ‘public interest’ organizations, much of the congressional Democratic Party and some congressional Republicans as well, and large sections of the judiciary, including, all too often, a majority of the Supreme Court” (p. 7).

Bork’s analysis is very detailed and voluminous. Therefore I will only summarize some of his main points that I find central to his thesis. First he notes coldly, but I believe accurately “that every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must by civilized by families, schools and churches”. He further notes that the post-war “baby boomer” generation was so large as to overwhelm America’s ability to fully acculturate many of them. Universities expanded dramatically after WWII, and leftist liberal professors began to join their faculties in increasing numbers. Bork notes that when students of the 1960’s left their homes to attend our Universities, that a great number of radical leftist professors were waiting to teach them their Marxist/socialist political philosophy. The professors were often the children of communist party members and radical left parents from the generation before. Bork cites Midge Decter’s (1975) book: Liberal Parents, Radical Children. Here the offspring of liberal parents were referred to as “red diaper babies”. An important main idea is that teens, often rebellious by nature, were easily propagandized and channeled by their radical professors.

In a section on “The Sacking Of The Universities”, Bork documented the riots and take-overs of Chancellor’s offices, classrooms and other school properties by radical students and of course, the Kent State tragedy and much more.

Over time the radicalized students graduated and the rebellious spirit of the times appeared to moderate following in the 1970’s. In fact some commentators concluded that the radicalism of the 1960’s had died out.

But, in fact, that radicalism had not died out. Instead, following graduation, the radical students traded their tie-died shirts and long hair for suits and ties and they entered our institutions to more quietly shape radical liberal attitudes, values, laws, and political outcomes that changed the ethos of our socioculture. They became our teachers, professors, lawyers, media workers, social organizers and politicians, etc.. A more peaceful and surreptitious phase of the radical Liberal transformation of America had begun.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah is, in my view, a very powerful, well-documented and detailed analysis of how an increasingly pervasive Marxist/socialist influence has contaged its way through the traditional value systems of America. But of course, that which “infected” America was not germs; they were ideas, a system of ideas, a philosophical political ideology that was always present in small in scattered spattering’s, that suddenly began to “metastasize” at escalating rates of occurrence until this day.

Again, it is widely accepted that all forms of socioculture carry with them the seeds of their own destruction. One theory of cancer is that we commonly carry cancer cells within our bodies, but our healthy immune system kills them off. It is only when our immune systems become impaired and weakened that the cancer cells began to rapidly multiply until they destroy their host. Another theory is that individuals may be exposed to cancer causing toxins in great enough doses that they cause cancer cells to grow at such a high rate as to overcome a healthy immune system.

By rough analogy the decline of America’s socioculture with its dramatic increase in spiritual, social, economic, and political pathologies have weakened our formerly healthy culture sustaining institutions. As a result, they are now failing to protect us from destructive ideologies, rule changes and behavioral outcomes that are rapidly growing in our midst. It appears that America has suffered increased doses of incompatible ideologies, rule changes and behavioral outcomes that are toxic and debilitating to the effectiveness of our formerly more healthy essential institutions. In sociocultural evolution it is often very difficult to tell causes from effects and they frequently form very destructive negative feed-back loops that escalate rapidly. So it is, I believe, with our American decline.

In any event, Bork does not see this growth of radical liberal ideals and values in America, leading to its decline, as resulting from a planned conspiracy. If fact he warns against this conclusion.

This is my only disagreement with Robert Bork’s assertions and conclusions in his great book.

Much as the endless horror shows so popular in theaters and increasingly on television do, conspiracy theories of all sorts abound and they appear popular because they titillate and stimulate fear and anxiety in the beholder. People may be attracted to conspiracy theories for similar reasons.

But, what if acting upon a particular conspiracy theory could prevent the further decline and ultimate transformation of American’s socioculture into something akin to its death. What if acting upon a conspiracy theory and attacking the source of the deadly transformation (breaking negative feedback cycles) could actually lead to America’s increased health and viability? What do we make of the historical evidence of planned human actions, rule changes and outcomes accruing in Western Cultures  that are displaying similar predictable damaging effects as those now unfolding in our own? In other words what if the conspiracy theory of a modified Marxist/socialist assault upon the whole of Western Culture is true?

Under these conditions, it would be adaptive to accept that particular conspiracy theory, to work diligently to find antidotes for its contagious influences, and to experimentally analyze the unfolding results in a continuing quest for survival in world hostile to America’s socioculture.

There is more to come on this and similar matters.

VTM, 12/2/13

When Religion Weakens, So Does Moral Behavior

January 7, 2011

When Religion Weakens, So Does Moral Behavior

I am currently writing on a section of a book related to moral behavior and culture.  What I have learned is that philosophy cannot tell us, secular humanists cannot tell us, science cannot tell us, but religion can tell us what good behavior is and how to achieve it. Unfortunately, the power of religion is dissipating with modernity and so its ethical code is no longer being taught effectively and its source , God, and rules for conduct are increasingly in dispute.

My dear submarine mate, Howard Hawkins, sent me the following. It is included in this blog’s comments section, but merits display on the main page.

Howard quotes Robert Bork, from his book: Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

“What Frederick Lewis Allen noted of the 1920s was true for a long time previously and remains true today: religion is declining because those identified with it do not actually believe in it. It seems impossible to say that a person believes in a religion when he rejects what the religion proclaims. It is difficult to say that a religion even exists if it keeps giving up its tenets to appease its members and critics. If belief, in some sense, can be said to be present, it is a weak and watery belief that is no match for parishioners’ personal, secular concerns” (p. 280).

Howard wrote: “Bork is correct, I readily admit I see it in the way I live my own life as well as for many of those that I’ve had a working or social relationship with”.

Bork continues:

“As life became easier and diversions more plentiful, men are less willing to accept the authority of their clergy and less willing to worship a demanding God, a God who dictates how one should live and puts a great many bodily and psychological pleasures off limits” ([/ 281).

End of all quotes:

I judge that Howard, Frederick Lewis Allen, Robert Bork, and others who have written about this loss of religious power in America are correct.

So now what?!

In the end, nothing is perfect. We must use what works best under the circumstances and know under what circumstances things do not work.  In this last case, we must then discover what does finally work and  we must organize ourselves to do it— or catastrophe looms. Yes, dear friends, the motivation for all of this is a matter of faith and hope and the outcome is vastly uncertain.

Gee, this sounds like a good argument for a return to our old faith-based moral codes: The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments, etc.. But here’s the rub: I doubt that the old moral codes will work without a return to faith in Their Author.

I will soon tell you some reasons for my conclusion.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.   1/7/10

P.S. Thanks Huck

Religion Accomplishes What Reason Cannot

January 2, 2011

Religion Accomplishes What Reason Cannot

Having again emersed myself in the philosophy of morality and ethics, I again endure the fog of semantical moras, the negation of all negations—the immorality of all moralities. My years as an academician have equipped me with a perverse enjoyment of a few battles of ideas that cannot be won. With regard to the philosophy of morality and ethics, I return again and again to find “the winner”, but the unquestioned victor never emerges.

What does emerge for me is the imperative of some practical guidelines that, under normal corcomstances, should not be questioned.

The following is taken from Robert H. Bork’s extraordinary book (p.278), Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

For me, Robert Bork has untied the Gordian Knot. In more colloquial terms: he has “cut the crap”. Please see what you think.

The following are Robert Bork’s words.

Today’s Religious conservatives take Christianity and Judaism seriously, but that does not place them outside a very long moral tradition. C. S. Lewis: ‘The number of actions about whose ethical quality a Stoic, an Aristotelian, a Thomist, a Kantian, and a Utilitarian would agree is , after all very large.  And again: ‘A Christian who understands his own religion laughs when unbelievers expect to trouble him by the assertion that Jesus uttered no command which had not been anticipated by the Rabbis—few, indeed, which cannot be paralleled in classical, ancient Egyptian, Ninevite, Babylonian, or Chinese texts. We have long recognized that truth with rejoicing. Our faith is not pinned on a crank.’

Bork goes on to say:

Only religion can accomplish for a modern society what tradition, reason, and empirical observation cannot. Christianity and Judaism provide the major premises of moral reasoning by revelation and by the stories in the Bible. There is not need to attempt the impossible task of reasoning your way to first principles. Those principles are accepted as given by God.

For most people, only revealed religion can supply the premises from which the prescriptions of morality can be deduced. Religion tells us what the end of man should be and that information supplies the premises for moral reasoning and hence a basis for moral conduct. Philosophers cannot agree on the proper end of man and hence cannot supply the necessary premises. Religion is by its nature authoritative and final as to first principles. It must be so or it would be valueless. Those principles are given on a stone tablet, either literally or figuratively, and so long as you believe the religion, there is simply no possibility to arguing with what is on the tablet.

 End of quotes.

In my view, there is no way out but this: Either a socioculture is built upon commonly accepted, religiously based precepts, or it will fall under the weight of its own behavioral chaos—much as America and the West is now.

Happy New Year.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.    1/2/11

The Disaster Of Modern Liberalism

November 27, 2010

The Disaster Of Modern Liberalism

The Following quote is taken from Robert Bork’s book (1996) , Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, pps. 64 & 65.

“The classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is widely and correctly admired, but we can now see that it was inevitably a transitional phase. The tendencies inherent in individualism were kept within bounds by the health of institutions other than the state, a common moral culture, and the strength of religion. Liberalism drained the power from the institutions.  We no longer have a common moral culture and our religion, while pervasive, seems increasingly unable to affect actual behavior.

Modern liberalism is one branch of the rupture that occurred in liberalism in the last century. The other branch is today called conservatism. American conservatism, neo or otherwise, in fact represents the older classical liberal tradition. Conservatism of the American variety is simply liberalism that accepts the constraints that a clear view of reality, including a recognition of the nature of human beings, places upon the main thrusts of liberalism–liberty and equality. The difference, it has been said, is that between a hard-headed and a sentimental liberalism. Sentimental liberalism, with its sweet view of human nature, naturally evolves into the disaster of modern liberalism.”

End of quote.

Wake-Up America!

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.

Liberalism, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—Pushed Too Far

November 24, 2010

 
Liberalism, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—Pushed Too Far
 
The following is taken from Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, by Robert Bork.
 
“The consequence of liberalism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness pushed too far are now apparent. Irving Kristol writes of ‘the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society—a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism…[S]ector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other.’ I would add only that current liberalism’s rot and decadence is merely what liberalism has been moving towards for better than two centuries.” (p. 63)
 
End of quote.
 
The effects of growing liberalism and its resulting chaos may increase  “feelings of Freedom” for many, in the short-term.
 
In the long-run, liberalism results in social, economic and political chaos. This leads to governmentally imposed restrictions and enforcements that are inimical to the pursuit of an enduring and meaningful happiness for almost everyone (save those in political power and control). 
 
Advancing liberalism also imposes increasing controls upon what can be spoken, written, and (to a lesser degree) what is thought. Liberalism bans more and more of our behaviors though its diabolical and amazingly powerful social-control tool called “political correctness”.
 
Wake-Up America!
 
V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.    11/24/10

Modern Liberalism: Chaos + Chaos = Chaos

November 22, 2010

Modern Liberalism: Chaos + Chaos = Chaos

The following  quote is taken from pps. 61 & 62 of  Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, by Robert Bork (1996). This book is a must read, if you would like to know how America is being destroyed right now, before your very eyes.

“The perpetual motion of liberalism was described by T. S. Eliot half a century ago”: ‘That liberalism may be a tendency towards something very different from itself, is a possibility in its nature…It is a movement  not so much defined by something definite.’ “What liberalism has constantly moved away from are the constraints on personal liberty imposed by religion, morality, law, family, and community.

“Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails.”  ‘By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified…Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial mechanised or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy of its chaos.’

In my view,  modern liberalism’s defense against Islamic terrorism is chaos. Its defense against traditional American moral values is chaos.

Chaos + chaos = chaos: We lose! 

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.


%d bloggers like this: