Tuesday, May 27, 2008

What post-modernism does to the mind

Two children die, due to serious head injuries, inconsistent with accidents and consistent with murder, manslaughter and a family environment of neglect and hedonistic irresponsibility.
However in the world of the Marxist post-modernist, "colonialism and capitalism" are to blame. So presumably there shouldn't be a Police investigation, violence towards children is simply the fault of "the system". Smashing an infant's head is, not the fault of the person doing it -no - it's what you do when you're a loser who blames everyone else for your problems or when the state doesn't give you the life you think you deserve. She's said it before. "It's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old"
So if she had a child, and a "person in poverty" tortured that three year old, she could point a finger at all those business people and blame them. It's rather like accusing the Jews of ruining Germany's economy in the 1920s, or educated people for the war in Cambodia. It denies people have conscience choices, and justifies doing violence to another because of "structural issues". One could argue such issues might "make a man rape a woman", except the post-modernist identity politics type classify people, like Leninists and Nazis did, into powerful and powerless, so that women by definition have less power than men DENYING that it varies enormously by individuals.
You see when you're infected by post-modernist relativism, individuals are irrelevant to your grand theory of the universe- the theory that says it's not the fault of Maori people who abuse their kids, for example.
Oh and don't forget that when she says "capitalism and colonialism played a large part in those babies deaths" (sic) no alternative is offered. Certainly not the alternatives of communism, Islamism and post-colonial nationalism which have blighted much of the world for decades, although she shows some sympathy towards Islamists fighting for Iraq to be another Iran.
Of course I wonder that if "capitalism killed Mrs Muliaga" (despite the evidence of her family having at least made multiple mistakes along with herself, the evidence of multiple warnings of disconnection of something that hadn't been paid for), why Maia didn't pay Mrs Muliaga's bill herself? In fact why don't those who "blame the system" use their own money to help those who "suffer"? For indeed if you are going to blame "the system" for the reason why some people abuse kids, then you should blame yourself for not doing enough for the victims. Her death is sad, but frankly I care about people I love, not some stranger dying because she and those who loved her didn't pay her power bill, didn't call the hospital and didn't follow medical advice.
Then you can say "The idea that we can all control our own health, if we have the right 'lifestyle' runs strong in our society" which is true, because to some extent it IS true. If you smoke and take drugs it will more than likely shorten your life, if you are a vegetarian who exercises it will probably lengthen your life. If you don't exercise, eat a lot of saturated fat and sugar, then it will probably shorten your life. It's medical fact, but then if it doesn't suit a post-modernist, she will evade this as being "culturally inappropriate" or whatever new means there is to be wilfully blind. However then to accuse the public hospital system, taxpayer funded, of being culturally insensitive and claim this is "capitalism" requires even more contortions of reality. How is a compulsory state funded hospital's poor advice to the Muliaga family the fault of capitalism? Might the hospital have been more responsive had the family been paying it?
So does one book therapy when your mind suffers from the contradictions that:
- People who commit crimes were "forced to" by the system;
- People who neglect their own welfare or that of their family have no responsibility to themselves or their families;
- Those that have not the slightest link at all, on any measure of evidence, causality, intent or responsibility, ARE to blame for the crimes, neglect or simple foolish irresponsibility of "victim groups" (defined by race, sex, class and whatever other silos make you a powerless victim of the oppressor groups);
- Parents who abuse kids are not responsible for it, but policemen who rape women are responsible, but while neither should go to prison, there is no alternative given?
Maybe I'm being a "right wing idiot" (another banal simplistic generalisation that there is just a left and right) but when do people become responsible for their own lives, their own actions and their own families? Why are people to be collectivised like sheep in the minds of the post-modernist collectivist, instead of being judged by their actions as individuals? and when do post-modernists ever recognise that, applying their own philosophy, everything they think is coloured and biased by their own experiences and so is, relatively speaking, not applicable to anyone else?
I'd simply like to know what the alternative to capitalism is and how it doesn't involve initiating violence against others.


Anonymous said...

I have to admit there is a pervasive blame and victimhood culture in New Zealand, but its been extensively documented that being born into a relatively poor area consigns people to hae measurably poorer outcomes than the more affluent in a range of areas, health, education, crime, alcohol and drug abuse etc.

I agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions, but I wish you would't dismiss the plight of the less advantaged in our society as you do.

Libertyscott said...

It is not so much being born there, but being surrounded by no-hopers who breed a culture of dependency, irresponsible hedonism, envy and tolerance for all sorts of abuse. It is the underclass culture that does it - draining hope and optimism from others.

Anonymous said...

Thats a bit harsh. Your description characterises pretty much all of NZ society,and probably Western society in general, not just the underclass.

Yes it is a documented fact that many lower socio-economic neighbourhoods lack social capital (trust, cooperation, hope for better things etc) in comparison to more affluent ones, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that more affluent people are more morally superior or virtuous.

That point of view is more characteristic of holier than thou conservatives, not a libertarin like yourself.

Libertyscott said...

Not quite, I don't think most of NZers are people who seek dependency, who are lifelong irresponsible hedonists (I think most are during part of their youth but that's it), and most don't tolerate abuse.

It isn't about wealth at all, it is about culture, a substratum of malignancy that sadly corrodes those who are in such neighbourhoods. I don't damn those who are poorer, but I damn those who condemn those areas to petty crime, to destruction of hope (the sad culture that means it is very uncool for young black men in low income areas to do well at school and work hard).

The bulk of the lumpen-proletariat remain so because of a lack of ambition, hope, drive and direction, sadly those who are taller poppies can be surrounded by the opposite, making them outcasts or seducing them into the world of careless sex, drugs and petty anti-social behaviour. It is the glorification of that and the subsidisation of that that needs confronting.

I'll welcome ideas how, and it isn't new - this substrata of destructiveness has existed for generations, but today it is better funded, has more chances in education and health - and is more mobile. The decline of religion has had its part, as nothing has replaced it philosophically except "live for the moment and fuck everyone else". It is valueless and vile.

BigGirlsBlouse said...

We will always have people who are vulnerable. The working poor and people on benefits struggle to make ends meet and that makes them vulnerable to all sorts of negativity. No one should die in this country because they can't afford their power bills. We must strive to provide really good access to health, social and education systems so that everyone gets a fair go.

Anonymous said...

As someone who grew up on the fringes of socio-economic groups and neighbourhoods that you describe, I don't believe that there is a culture that necessarily seek dependancy, but most feel as though thats the only option available to them.

They don't have access to the social support and networks that you and I take for granted, which help us with learning, employment oppurtunities, capital, and contacts in business. Basically which allows us to succeed in life. All the poor are condemned to is mere survival. Passive spectators and consumers rather than participants and producers of value.

I don't know what the root of the assumption that is uncool to achieve in education as a Black or Maori for that matter, but it must be confronted and recognised that they can achieve something of value and merit beyond the sportsfield or the commercialised rap music industry.

I guess its another failure of leadership in Maoridom. Too busy blaming Pakeha for historic grievances so as to avoid responsibility for not dealing with the issues of today.