The well-worn expression, ” My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts,” is an expression of sardonic critique and, unfortunately, an apt description of the dynamic of governance of the systemically ignorant Trump and his entire dystopian Administration. The deplorable element of irrational bias, tactically encouraged by Trump’s atavistic promulgation of non-factual ideations rather than confirmable facts, provided the key to his surprising election victory. Notably, it was the large horde of the Nation’s compliant underbelly of grievance-ridden, populist reductionists, in large part, that was existential to his (ill-fated) election.
Trump’s dystopian and undemocratic policies encouraged and signified his role as the avatar of shamelessness. atavistic, un-American prejudice and consummate immorality, which derivatively and ubiquitously seem to presently rule the day. Notably, it was from the influential members of such an ignorant horde of the Nation’s underbelly of populist reductionists that, elected Donald J. Trump was elected to the Oval Office, and from which his self-serving selection of atrocious political lieutenants was made.
Dynamically catalyzed by the devolution of Trump’s dystopian, morally bankrupt rule as the Nation’s Chief Executive, America’s underbelly of systemic bigots and anti-democratic-leaning populists, resultingly, felt ratified and encouraged. The American tradition of liberty and equality was sadly transmogrified into false and conspiratorial ideations of imminent danger, presumably emanating from the Nation’s diverse category of minority racial and religious populations. The shameless existence of atavistic prejudice publicly raised its fearsome head by the paranoid conspiracy cult of the MAGA sycophants.
It has been our confident belief, consistent with he primacy of the empirical theory of John Locke and a host of venerated philosophers, including Erasmus, Descartes, Newton, Bacon, Voltaire, and, none other than the classically revered Socrates, that man’s sole source of knowledge is derived from his life’s (learning) experience. As a corollary to such understanding, we have chosen to believe that the anti-humanistic, regressive element of prejudice, or bias, is taught or is the product of variable environmental experience and, accordingly, it is pragmatically feasible, with appropriate dedication, to be assuaged, or even eliminated.
The metaphysical etiology of the disease of bigotry, in our view, can be beneficially recognized and employed for such a purpose. As cogent illustration, we cite two markedly different, but thematically representative, categories of our theory concerning the etiology of the diverse plethora of shameful and invideous categories of deplorable bigotry: (1) race prejudice and (2) literary censorship.,
(1) [Racial prejudice]: We would declare that the dynamic definition of racial prejudice encompasses the negative emotional reaction to members of a group and the associated acceptance of communication of negative racial stereotypes against them; specifuically, the delusional belief that there is a link between physical traits and those of personality and other features that are implicitly (and therefore, presumably) deemed personally or societally objectionable.
In our almost nine decades of empirical experience, we have observed that in environments where daily, routine interaction between diverse members of society is a salubrious preventative of racial discomfort and, worse, hatred. In our ubiquitous experiences of maturing, higher education, military, and simply mundane daily experiences, we have observed anecdotal expressions of overt and subtle racial prejudice. Living in cosmopolitan New York City, an amalgam of cultural, ethnic, and, contextually, racial diversity, we accordingly find it unnatural to harbor feelings of hatred or discrimination, relative to the subject of diverse skin color or religious affiliation. This experiential inability may vary in degree in the case of small, rural white enclaves.
It is our thematic proposal that the existence of discomfort or even fear and hatred of diversely appearing human beings is the proximate resultant of the scarcity of mutual association and the result of the lack of normalizing interactive communication; the consequence of which has been negative ideation and feelings of peresonal insecurity.
It is our view that were members of society to beneficially participate in neighborly interaction with others of ubiquitous color and ethnic culture, the age-old problem of racial paranoia would, by such enlightening experience, gradually morph into a long-awaited and just extinction.
(2) [Book Censorship]:
In sync with our proposition that the ubiquitous phenomenon of bigotry has a common etiology, the consequence of the experience of the bearer of that disgraceful trait, it is our view that those who hubristically arrogate to themselves the delusion that certain books are harmful to societal mores are the perverse products of empirical ignorance. Aside from our disgust relative to the plai arrogance expressed by such self-appointed arrogantly delusional undertaking, it is our view that such presumed arbiters of literary acceptability could not rationally be systematic, participatory consumers of literature and, as a practical matter, are not rationally or suitably equipped to be an arbiter of published literature.
Literature should never be properly beholden to the subjective evaluation of others, most especially, those who are less than dedicated readers, but nevertheless, arrogate to themselves the unconstitutional and neurotically arrogant role of supervisor of literature or the beneficent societal, “moral protector” of the free exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 