Professor Francis Harry Compton Crick was a British physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. Crick suggests in his The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul that a person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atom, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them. He argued that traditional conceptualizations of the soul as a non-material being must be replaced by the materialistic understanding of how the brain produces mind; that religions can be wrong about scientific matters, and that part of what science does is to confront the errors that exist within religious traditions.


Beyond Good and Evil

Even the most elementary understanding of science makes it clear that human perception is a construct. The blue of the sky, the deep red of a morning sunrise, the human voice, even the glass of water you drink, none are as they appear. Francis Crick describes the brain as a conscious, perceptive, and thinking organ. Yet what you see is not what is really there; it is what your brain believes is there. Your brain makes the best interpretation it can, combines the information, and settles on the most plausible interpretation. This allows the brain to guess a complete picture.

Envision an experiment. Two people are shown an identical, large, and intricate painting, each being in different rooms. The two people are not aware of each other. The first is told to look at the picture for one minute. The second person is confronted with the same picture, but it has been covered with sixty, one inch square pieces of paper so the painting cannot be seen. As the second person watches, each square is removed for one second and then replaced. This continues until each square of paper has been removed and then replaced. The person only saw one inch of the painting at a time. You then ask each person what the picture was of and to describe it in detail. Both have seen the entire picture. But each will have a different interpretation. The second person might not know what the picture was, but might be better able to describe certain pieces of detailed information. It is somewhat analogous to one not being able to see the trees for the forest, the other not being able to see the forest for the trees.

It becomes evident then that you can be taught to see, hear, smell, and feel what others want you to see, hear, smell, and feel in an effort to make their construct yours. This has myriad implications. One, of course, is the modern move to secular morality vs. tradition morality. Europe has become almost wholly secular; some other countries are following, and America is making great strides toward the notion of a self-evident morality as well.

Philosopher Bryan Magee says that “human behavior makes the most sense when it is explained in terms of beliefs and desires, not in terms of volts and grams.” To him, we understand ourselves not so much through science but through our interrelations, our culture, our value systems, and possibly our totems as described by Emile Durkheim. And we differentiate ourselves by these attributes over those of plants or animals.

My “unified continuum”, however, is constructed of past and present experience as well as my expectations of the future. We are made up of atoms and molecules, but they move at our will in a holistic way.

One can speculate whether morality is an illusion. That we “ought” implies that we “can”, which implies, at least, a certain amount of free will. Yet, is morality a construct as well? Kant showed us that the material world is not the only world there is, and that there is a higher domain we rely on in every free choice we make. That “there is a ghost in the machine, which we may for convenience term the soul.”

To an extent these are micro observations of humanity. But there is as well a macro behavior. As atoms and molecules move in a continuum that describes each of us as “I”, we as a people move as well to describe the continuum of a society whose culture was at least partially static.

What is good and evil, and what is beyond either? Our culture has been lead by the rule of law and by the conditions of morality as set in stone in the Ten Commandments. These written rules have presided over morality for much of Western civilization for centuries and for America for the better part of two hundred years. This is swiftly becoming an extinct description. A new morality is being taught and nurtured, particularly among our youth, many of whom are now adults.

The rules that governed our individual behavior and that of society are no longer in vogue. The new morality is being claimed by the secular ethic of the future. “The culture wars in America, involving issues like abortion, divorce, and homosexual marriage, can be largely understood as a clash between traditional morality and secular morality.”

“The new source of morality is no longer the external code but the inner heart.” Does this not provide cover for autonomy and self-fulfillment; does this not provide cover for selfish and irresponsible behavior?

The neo and ultra left are deeply imbued with this new morality. It has taken over American government, our universities, our corporations, and our institutions. It is beyond traditional morality. And it is beyond good and evil. It is the appeal of unbelief. It is gaining the power to remake society in its own construct.

Our brain tries to unravel the consequences of what appears to be the ever decreasing value of the dollar, spiraling unemployment, the apparent corruption within the government and corporate America, and our own tenuous situation amidst a left wing enclave of secular morality. As the forest around us begins to burn, our philosophical musings begin to seem less important than does the simple idea of survival.

As a nation we are certainly spiraling downward. Has this any real meaning in the overall scheme of things? We might abhor the idea of our savings being sacrificed to the hungry politicos; we might shudder at the idea of being simply another third world country; we might even suffer a suicidal depression at the thought of the abject poverty of our children. If we listen to the positive lectures by such evangelists as Joel Osteen, we might even find a silver lining in our own demise. If we are only beings whose perception cannot even perceive the real “us”, do those sacrificed in the ovens of Buchenwald make any real difference?

Are these simply the perceptions of Francis Crick with which our minds make the best interpretation? Is morality simply a construct of one’s own personality and inner feeling, or is there something more about a social contract that one must hold on to? Why is the sky blue? Why is Obama making changes that threaten our quality of life?

Life can be made easy or difficult. Is our morality that of Job wherein mankind simply does not have enough knowledge to explain why things happen the way they do? Do life’s hardships chisel a perception of morality?

As a practical matter we are obliged to forgo these elevated intellectual matters and fight simply for our survival and as well that of a society and culture that is not beyond good and evil, but rejoices in the rules by which it was forged. Fight with tooth and clay for the survival of our traditional cultural morality, if not for yourself, then for your children and their children.

If you revel in exploring “self”, you must also explore the consequences that self indulgence brings to what was once a glorious nation, whose prosperity and culture was the envy of the world. For what other reason did everyone want to move here and virtually no reasonable person wanted to leave?

Force Majeure is not a defense to denial.

Doctor L. Scott Smith, Esq.

“Etiquette, no matter how well-meaning, cannot manipulate the marketplace of ideas for long. To argue otherwise demonstrates merely the idiocy of “political correctness””. L. Scott Smith, America Unraveling, A Politically Incorrect Analysis of Public Faith and Culture

Political Correctness: A Cultural Cancer

Cancer is not just one disease but a large group of almost one hundred diseases. Its two main characteristics are uncontrolled growth of the cells in the human body and the ability of these cells to migrate from the original site and spread to distant sites. If the spread is not controlled, cancer can result in death.

The term Politically Correct has some rather vague beginnings, some of which did not often represent what it does today. Kant’s separation of “faith” and “empirical knowledge”, for example, argues that the former is a subjective matter only. Does that make Kant the father of relativism? Nor is the ideology of Political Correctness just an American phenomenon. It aspires to undermine several Western cultures as well. Oddly enough, it is currently thought by liberals to be a brilliant Republican invention to undermine the opposition. Whatever its origin or salient progenitors, it has gotten out of hand.

No thinking or civilized person can argue with the truthfulness of its underlying intentions. Though ethnically diverse, it is to our benefit to remain united. Using terms like nigger or honky rips the fabric of unity. Indeed, we are a nation of ethnic diversity, but it is counter productive to allow cultural diversity. The terms are often misunderstood. If one argues against cultural diversity, many have the idea that one argues against ethnic diversity. It has become popular to squash any such discussions as racist or radical and falls under the umbrella of the Political Incorrect.

One might believe that many so called Politically Incorrect actions or statements are rather shallow or that their antonym, Publically Correct, is often a bit silly. And sometimes they are. But this ideology has woven itself into the American social structure so tightly that it is destroying the body of its host. The definition of cancer above aptly describes the destruction of a body (nation) by the uncontrolled growth of cells (politically correct ideology). And like a cancer, it spreads and attacks the heart of our unity and strength through a process of national, cultural decay, and if not controlled, will help result in our nation’s death.

Is that an exaggeration?

A culture is represented by its language, its approach to science, its world view, its financial structure, its economic strength, its religious foundation, and a host of other attributes. America praises itself on being philanthropic, a nation of liberty, and a bulwark of Christian values. Mr. Obama stated that America is the greatest nation on earth. One presumes it was because of these attributes. He then made a Marxist contradiction by asking his supporters to help him change it. He followed that by stating that we are not a Christian nation. As it turns out, Politically Correctness, unabated, was part of that change in a societal preponderance of relativistic thought.

Politically Correctness has infiltrated more than its shallow underbelly. It now regulates our behavior in mathematics, science, sociology, finance, and every other strata of what was our national culture. As strange as it might seem, there is a term in use now called Anti-racist Mathematics. In short, it is the idea that minorities are not given equal advantage because the discipline is discriminatory to certain classes of citizens. I graduated from the university in mathematics. It seemed to me that math was just math. I had no idea that it was ethnic or cultural. Nor was I bright enough to know the difference. Political Correctness affects Christmas, speech, identity politics, newspeak, sex, first person language, political consciousness, Xenocentrism, and a host of cultural misanthropes.

It is a cancer that has even infected our young heroes who fight our wars. And it is leveled almost entirely by people who have not been in the military. Such judgments of behavior are easy for those who have not born the stress of combat. These young combatants, who do our bidding, carry considerable weight on their backs. Temperatures are either unbearably hot or painfully cold. Hours and often days are spent in the field without facilities. Each day ends in exhaustion. One’s butt cheeks become so chaffed that walking is painful. One’s pants often become laden with excrement and urine. The average person would not tolerate the food for more than a day. Body order is appalling. The nights are filled with terror. One opines endlessly whether he will run out of ammunition or that his weapon will fail. And then there is the constant threat of death. And many either come to that fate or are seriously injured for life. The enemy is known to do appalling and barbaric things to him if he is caught. Strange illnesses attack those in a strange land, some that are un-diagnosable.

And if that is not enough, he is constantly followed by cameras and news crews who his own superiors have authorized. They transmit his every move back to a citizenry that knows not his torture but who judges him under the guise of Politically Correctness. Why? To appease whom?
Recent examples illustrate this misguided pejorative and its affect on a whole society. Navy SEALS were sent on a mission to capture and extract the ringleader of those who killed, mutilated, burned, and then hung Americans from a bridge over the Euphrates River. This barbarian, Ahmed Hashim Abed, apparently claims some little boo-boo at some point in his capture. But this is only according to Ahmed after being turned over to the Iraqi authorities. There were no witnesses. These men are now up on charges. Ringleaders of the WTC bombing are being tried in a civilian court. Many in America decry the water boarding or other mild interrogation methods of them while at Gitmo. I went through much more in Special Forces training. An adherent to the religion of Islam was trained as a physiatrist on tax payer’s dollars. Military authorities were remiss in asking questions and taking this individual to task. The result: he killed 13 people and wounded scores more as they were being processed for deployment. Our southern border remains a war zone as the administration hurries to appease Mexican elitists.

Why? The ever spreading forms of Political Correctness? A country filled with illiterate and obese pansies (Seventy five percent of our young are not eligible for the military because of this ridiculous situation)? A nation that has lost is way, its will, its integrity, its fortitude (Less than 2 percent of our nation is active military. Less than 9 percent are veterans.)? A nation who cannot remove their thumbs from their Blackberry, who cannot get their ass off the couch, watching the newest reality show or the latest football game, who cannot get themselves out of bed before noon? A nation of bodies mutilated with ink in an effort to show their individuality? And yet, at that late hour of the day, some find themselves putting on their protesting apparel and rushing to the latest political identity rally or special interest group meeting to have lunch and plan how to change their country’s values to match and indulge their own sick desires?

Yes, like cancer, Political Correctness begins from hundreds of point sources, each with eloquent arguments for its righteousness, for its virtue, for its holy grail and for its supposed point of light to the rest of the world. And it migrates from its original source to distant sites. In the meantime, it not only suppresses the traditional functioning of a culture but slowly destroys it. And like a cancer, if not controlled, will result in death.

At its heart, Political Correctness is denial. Denial has no survival value.