Authenticating Anger: The Bee in the Mouth.

Post-Darwinist takes on Post Modernism in Canadian government.

In a missive to post-darwinist, Rob Sheldon wrote,

I've blogged extensively on PoMo [post modernism, ed.], and concluded it is essentially polytheistic. This is the phrase Paul Johnson uses to describe the multiple absolutes of feminism, eco-terrorism, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. And in polytheism, rationality is not a virtue (for it would suggest there was a single absolute that ruled all nature). So what replaces rationality?

Peter Woods explained it in an essay "A Bee in the Mouth" , as "authenticating anger". What Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens and Harris all have is "authenticity". That's why they are rock stars.

Post-darwinist responded,

"...But in a post-modernist age, authenticating anger is the key criterion. So one never knows for sure from what direction the persecution will come. It could be animal rights, women's rights, gay rights, ethnic pride - there is no longer a single coherent narrative, just a bunch of angry people who want the government to fix their perceived enemies.

"Peter Vere, who - as Kathy Shaidle's co-author - has just released The Tyranny of Nice, makes clear where this leads:

'In the name of nice, Canada’s government is silencing Christians and pro-lifers from voicing opinions that others might find offensive. This prohibition applies even when one’s opinion is grounded in Christian truth and charity. Stating that the child in the womb is a human being is one such opinion being floated as potentially hateful. And now that Canadian law has redefined marriage to include same-sex couplings, to state publicly that marriage is between a man and a woman can lead to thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail sentences.'

"Note that the modernist state did not actually persecute Christians for differing with other citizens on abortion. But then the modernist state had a coherent political narrative that permitted tolerance.

"The post-modernist state has masses of grievance groups, anxious to target anyone who gives them anxiety." [Emphasis added].

Another description:

"...the roar of egocentric rage..." [Dr Laura]

One of the traditional measures of the quality of personal character is the self-restraint of behavior. The cultural equivalent of the virtue of restraint has been removed in the name of tolerance. But it is now intolerance that is culturally rampant. At least intolerance of anything resembling a "virtue" such as would appear in "good character". Self-indulgence has replaced self-restraint as the reigning virtue; criticism of self-indulgence is declared intolerant, and not to be accepted in the [Canadian] post-modern culture...one can no longer openly opine on the negative effects of the self-indulgences of sexual profligacy, abortion, the return of eugenics, etc.

Even the idea of a "coherent narrative" as fallen away with the rise of personal indignation as the measure of rationality in post modern culture. Because indignation can be, and is, based on relative values, no narrative built on such a basis can ever be coherent or consistent. In fact, competing indignations are inevitable, and resolution is impossible when tolerance is not a value. The exception to this is when one side is government supported and the other is government repressed, as is the case in Canada where the opinions of one side are designated as hate crimes while the opinions of the other are protected from indignation by their holders. In this case the new "values" are codified into absolutes, despite their relative underpinnings. And this is the classical definition of intolerance. It is the face of totalitarianism in thought, culture, and in governing.