Culture and Objectivity

efore looking into how we slaves

are programmed to attack each other, rather than question our masters, let us compare “culture” to truly objective disciplines.

Culture and Science

One of the reasons that biologists chose Latin to describe species was that Latin was an international language, at least in the 17

and 18

centuries. Because the scientific method – post-Bacon – took as its most fundamental methodology the validation of human reasoning according to measurable and empirical reality, it was fundamentally cross-cultural in nature.

What is considered

“good” and “proper” is very different in India than in America. The nature of a carbon atom, however, remains identical – as do the properties of gravity, magnetism, light, sound and so on.

The only thing that separates an Indian physicist from an American physicist is

form

– i.e. language – not

content

, i.e. science.

This is distinct from their separate cultures, in which both

form

and

content

wildly diverge.

The same is true for mathematicians – the only thing that separates Chinese and British mathematicians is the form of notation they use. The underlying principles and logic

remain identical.

Musicians, too, through their manipulation of objective

sound waves, also use an objective framework and produce exactly the same notes when reading the same notation.

Farmers also very easily work over cross-cultural

“boundaries,” since an ear of corn does not suddenly become a

nunchuck

when crossing the border from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

Financial transactions are also cross-cultural – with the difference, of course, that they are subject to wild predations in the form of state coercion

. An objective exchange rate exists between the rupee and the yen, which allows purchasing power to objectively cross cultural or geographical boundaries.

We could continue in this vein for some time, but let us at least at this point understand that there are numerous human disciplines that are rational and objective

– but

culture

is not one of them.

Culture and Objectivity

Since culture is not objective, it must be subjective, at least to some degree.

To the degree that culture

is subjective, it cannot make reference to any objective facts or realities. For instance, if I say, “I like vanilla ice cream,” I am expressing a subjective preference – quite distinct from saying, “Objectively, vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream.”

Furthermore, if I say not only that vanilla ice cream is the best flavour objectively, but also that it is

immoral

to prefer any other flavour, and

moral

to prefer vanilla, then clearly I am going far beyond the bounds of rationality.

Not only am I claiming that vanilla is objectively

“best,” but also that it is the

only moral ideal

, and that any preference for any other flavour is

immoral

The elevation of a subjective preference

to an objective ideal – especially when it involves ethics – is simply called

bigotry

Thus

culture

, by elevating subjective preferences for local customs to objective – and often

moral

– ideals, is merely a species of petty, self-righteous, pompous, false, prejudicial and ugly

bigotry

Culture is the most dangerous lie in the world, because false moral

ideals are always required for the execution of evil.

Now, what is

moral

must be

enforced

– thus by turning subjective preferences into “objective morality,” culture opens wide the hellish gates of violent control.

In other words, by turning violence

into virtue, culture not only

excuses

violence – culture

creates

violence.

What Slaves Really Fear

Culture can thus be accurately viewed as

a set of moral mythologies that are used to create, justify and extend violence against the majority of individuals

What is it, then, that prevents us from shrugging off these choking and enslaving falsehoods?

In other words, who are you most afraid of?

If you start to speak the truth about culture

, mythology, exploitation and violence, whose response frightens you the most?

If you openly speak about the simple reality

that the state is violence, are you afraid that black-suited SWAT teams will burst through your windows and drag you off to Guantanamo Bay?

If you say that religious superstition is an exploitive lie, that the New York attacks were an unjust retaliation to far more unjust American attacks upon Muslims, that soldiers are merely men paid to kill others, like any hit-men – whose response do you fear the most?

There is a reason that we do not say these things.

There is a reason that we smile and nod and wave our flags and cheer our leaders and refuse to speak the simple truths that would inevitably set us free.

That reason is not that we are afraid of our leaders, or their thugs, or their jails, or their tortures.

The reason that we bite our tongues is that we are afraid

of each other