What are culture and morality? The definitions of these two concepts have
vexed philosophers and theologians for most of recorded history. For a great many centuries, they were
consigned to the realms of the secular and theorlogical, respectively. Yet, they were inextricably united in the
whole that we commonly call civilization.
At one time, the civil and theological powers were bound
together, with one reinforcing the other.
In many cases, they were the same force, as in the millennium where the
Roman Church ruled the throne, or even today were Shyaria has surfaced among
certain political forces, so that secular and religious authority cannot be
isolated.
As a species, we seem to have arrived at a unique nexus in
history. Largely beginning with the Protestant
Reformation and into the Enlightenment Period (for Western culture, at least),
a process was begun to separate the conjoined twins of culture and morals that
is having profound consequences now 500 years later. In the case of then and now, the upheaval is
predicated on new forms of communication, and the resulting loss of control by
the elite classes, the Priesthood, if you will.
Indeed, we must call them the Priesthood. “They” is too vague and undefined. What we are dealing with is a group of elites,
who for centuries have wielded the combined swords of culture and morals. Having watched their authority erode from the
time of Gutenberg until now, we know from documents such as the 29 Protocols
that this Priesthood is trying to reset society. By creating a ‘culture’ where anything goes
and there seem to be no rules or authority at all, the Priesthood is trying to
bring civilization to its knees to use the opportunity to re-establish their
wide-ranging controls over humanity.
We are witnessing this deconstruction right now. The crumbling secular structures of
government, police powers, religion, education, and so forth, is leading
inevitably towards a moment of catharsis in which we will collectively cry out
for some authority to step in and save us from ourselves. Enter the currently deposed Priesthood, who
have sought to regain their former status as rulers and arbitrators since the
moment we unwashed masses were able to own and read a copy of Gutenberg’s
Bible.
Since the Enlightenment, Western culture has strived to
locate a moral code and authority in Nature.
By taking the moral authority away from monarchs and religious
institutions, they were forced to find some new force in Nature that
established and enforced a set of Universal Morals. The secular Western states and legal systems
began to evolve as moral arbiters, legislating what God once declared through
secret revelations to religious authorities.
In other words, the Priesthood was deposed from their
central role of wielding cultural, secular and financial power over all aspects
of life. They were replaced by
Jeffersonian concepts of Universal Equality and Sufferage, though the
realization of those ideals is still evolving.
In some cases, moral authority was bestowed on society’s institutions
by Nature’s God – a sort of amorphous and non-sectarian power. In other cases, such as Soviet Communism, all
religious authority was to be purged and a moral code was to be forced on
society by a central authority, whose job it was to become obsolete and fade
away. Still others, such as Japan,
Thailand and Britain, maintain a monarch invested with both secular and
religious authority, though of necessity, the role of the monarch has been
elevated to a point where they have almost no day-to-day control, due to their
lofty natures.
In some cases, such as Russia, there is a swing back to a
more central role of the Church in secular affairs, in the person of Putin and
his cronies. In the US and Indonesia,
there are many voices proclaiming that those countries were founded on
religious authority, though those voices are very wrong. The mistake comes in not understanding what a
republic is, and how a republic seeks to establish a core set of “rights” (a
modern replacement for morals) that cannot be undone or modified by the
governmental power.
In concept, these “rights” are to be upheld and enforced by
all society. Every member agrees that
these “rights” are bestowed by some higher authority than government
(undefined). In practice, though,
“rights” are malleable and mutable. They
are subject to changing moral standards.
They have become much closer to “privileges” than “rights”. A perfect example is the “right” to bear
arms, or the “right” to free speech.
Almost as fast as those “rights” are declared, people begin finding
occasions when they are seemingly inappropriate, and so immediately begin the
process of creating “privileges” out of “inalienable rights”.
Since the Enlightenment, we have found ourselves trying to
define Universal Morality. Is there
indeed a set of rules that apply in all times and places? We claim that it is wrong to kill, but almost
in the same breath call self-defense an important exception to that rule. We claim it is always wrong to steal, yet in
the very next paragraph authorize taxes and civil forfeiture.
In other words, cut loose from the religious authority,
morality becomes a kind of contrast ratio, where a a sliding scale occasionally
brings certain “rights” into view, while others fall outside the framework. Relativism takes over and suddenly morality
becomes defined by each and every individual’s circumstance and context. What makes this unacceptable, though, is the
fact that one can be punished in the future for a moral choice in the past that
was within the framework then, but is not now.
This retroactive feature of the moral ration of relativism is what
places us at the nexus, where we find ourselves now.
In other words, it is immoral for someone to torture and
kill without some kind of socially defined process, unless you wear a uniform
and/or carry some sort of “badge” that gives license to ignore the rules.
So we find ourselves at the crucial moment in history: the
ancient Priesthood is fomenting chaos in order to insert themselves back into
the throne; secular power has been
divorced from the “higher authority” that once kept it in check; the individual
is without moral compass because the framework is constantly sliding around the
scale of right and wrong.
Our civilization is coming to a mighty clash – a perfect
storm of immovable objects and irrisistable forces – where the very old, the
old, the new, and the very new will battle it out using the unique creation of
the internet. The result, in a century
or so, will be the first truly Universal Moral Code, acceptable to all
individuals.
In the meantime, however, it will be nasty. There will be many casualties as the various
camps battle it out over who will ultimately control this new authority. Some, such as the Religion, Illuminati and
Capitalist camps, have suffered severe blows and are fighting back like
cornered and wounded animals. This epoch
may end in a revolutionary conflagration that will leave nothing standing of
our cultural past.
What emerges from this unique period in history will be the
ruling paradigm for centuries to come, and we likely will not recognize the
outcome. Most of us reading these words
will probably not be around to see the result.
However, we are obligated by our duty to future generations
to begin talking about this battle and profoundly exploring the conceptual
framework that will emerge from it. In
the quest to destroy something old, there must be a plan for replacing it. This is the vital part of the current culture
that is conspicuous in its absence. We
are at a unique point in history, with a unique tool called the internet. Ultimately, we have two choices: destroy
everything, or create something.
