Evolutionist mindset: a crisis of conscience

We can now watch man’s inhumanity towards man more or less as it happens. We can watch missiles and smart bombs raining down on our neighbours from the comfort of our living room and watch blood trickling from dead bodies that have just been torn apart by a suicide bomber. We can watch the drama of war as it unfolds after it has been ethically and politically sanitised for prime time family viewing on our news channels.
So familiar are we with the clever way in which life is realistically portrayed by actors and film-makers using the latest digital gadgetry we could be forgiven for watching real human tragedy as if it were entertainment. The thin line between reporting and entertainment becomes even more blurred when films portraying reporters reporting on war become so close to the real thing that it is almost impossible to tell the difference.
One of the most poignant and perhaps most devastating examples of inhumanity is the two atomic bombs dropped on innocent families by American aircrews over Japan in 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporised, that is, totally annihilated, by the Americans within a month of the first Atomic bomb being built. So much in a hurry were they to ‘test’ the power of their new technology that the aircrew were not entirely convinced their bomb load would perform as reliably as their superiors said it would. In the light of the story that was eventually given a viewing as a documentary over cable networks to the American public as late as 1999 one cannot find words to understand why successive Western leaders have committed themselves to inhumane atrocities ever since.
It is totally beyond all boundaries of reason and common sense, in the light of recent history, for any country in the post-modern era of the so-called ‘age of enlightenment’ – of rational thought that gave us the human renaissance in the 15th century – to engage in acts of brutality for the purpose of securing justice and democracy.

But reason and common sense are not naturally occurring human traits, they are learnt through the specific codified language of our education and our media. Here you will find the double-mindedness of people proudly calling themselves ‘academics’, whose absolutism is expressed in one column bleating on about the sanctity of life when a member of their own society is blown to bits by a ‘mad Islamic terrorist’ but readily defend in an adjacent column their absolutist moral justification for the brutality and murder of innocent families who are not members of their society. This kind of absolutism murdered Achan in the Bible.

Reading the front page of the Daily Express dated June 7th 1944, which I happened to find in the loft the other day, I couldn’t find a single word of disapproval for the amount of carnage going on in Europe at that time. In today’s papers the same community of double-minded journalists croon and whine about man’s inhumanity to man while supporting the principle of ‘self-defence’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. If for one moment in their lives they can’t make up their minds once and for all whether having a standing army to kill others on their behalf is not equally as repugnant as terrorists having a standing army of suicide bombers to kill others on their behalf then they should put down their quills and shut up. It’s simply no good one day writing columns that lend passive support to a killing machine because they wear British/UN/US uniforms labelling them as ‘defenders of democracy’ whilst on another, aggressively criticising a another group labelling them ‘terrorists, enemies of democracy’ because they wear a uniform/language/culture that is alien to our Western ones, without making any attempt to confront the problem of a cultural and national pathological disease defined as self-righteousness. No case would stand up in a court that argues for killing the innocent in order to combat evil but this is what schizophrenic journalism does in some quarters.

The same can be said of those who responded to the terrible slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the cry ‘foul’ in one breath and then, in another, type on their typewriter ‘it was a necessary evil’. It is not necessary to talk but it is necessary to do evil. In fact the ideology of war, fundamentally believing that slaughter is a necessary evil to save the world from evil, has proved in Europe to be the greatest cause of human suffering, but it is horribly presented to children in our schools as heroism worthy of honour and pride. Schizoids run amuck in our schools.

"It was to me the most horrendous, terrifying thing I had ever seen," camera operator Herbert Sussan, who's now deceased, said in a 1983 interview with the BBC. "I finally convinced myself and some of these people that there was some value for the rest of the people of the world to see what had happened in this first bombing."

McGovern and Sussan were two people who tried to gather original unseen footage connected with the slaughter in Japan but U.S. government officials at the time deemed it too sensitive to release and they confiscated black-and-white footage that a Japanese film crew shot before the Americans arrived. In the interview on the BBC they told their story how they managed to get their hands on the vital footage necessary to show the American people the part their country played in the massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. The production was shown nationwide 60 years on from the event. Such is the guilt of a nation that it should use officialdom to obfuscate and delay the making of an important documentary.

What they had hoped from this documentary was some kind of intellectual break through that would bring clarity of thinking to our paragons of Western culture, to our educationalists, our academics and our scholars, to perhaps help them deconstruct some of the Old Testament ideologies that have influenced the direction of our culture far too long. May be they thought that the footage would awaken deep compassion for fellow human beings among our educationalists whom they thought might respond by pushing harder for a curriculum that praised pacifism and scorned the traditional social practice of dressing up war memorials and of preserving weapons of mass destruction like trophies in museums and of celebrating the heroic acts of thugs on horseback and in tanks. Perhaps they even hoped for a total disarmament.

The educational aspect of denouncing vile weapons of mass destruction, of constructing a coherent case for the total disbandment of a standing military force and of presenting an intelligent alternative to the tripe about ‘noble bloodshed’ clearly remains an anathema to the machinery of State education. But that’s secularism for you.

The prognosis among those who discuss the issue of war in public and who watch fellow citizens proudly display their trophies of war on the internet; the US soldier his endless photos of bodies scorched by phosphur or torsos ripped apart by shells; the Terrorist his footage of decapitation and blindfolded journalists, is that the secular conscience is very sick indeed. By ‘human being’ I mean collectively the secular world that no longer has a conscience that can be trusted. Who knows what Christless powers will decide next, with their cauterised view of a species they foolishly believe has no loving Creator? Which community of people do you think is next on their agenda for being wasted as part of an over all strategy for blessing God’s planet with their constructivist demented Foucaultian view of what constitutes ‘civilisation’?

There’s going to be gnashing of teeth alright.