If a total bifurcation of the social world were to take place, there would be liberal discourse and liberal ontology on one hand, and on the other hand there would be basic human culture and a universal way of life. Cultural differences and cultural nuances can be appreciated, overcome, and understood through education and experience. As the Quran states: “We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another.” Thus, the paradox of the social world is that our cultural differences and cultural nuances can actually be a way of bringing different people together. If everyone were the same, things would become hackneyed and redundant. However, the so-called “diversity” of liberal discourse is actually overridden by groupthink and uniformity of thought.
Moreover, liberal discourse and liberal ontology was never the norm in America. The traditional intellectual discourse in America is a unique form of “pragmatism” which balances religion with science, as mentioned in previous blog posts. Therefore, Jeff Zucker, Rupert Murdoch, and the like should essentially go back to the caves they came from. In turn, the ontological void that is left by the hollowness and superficiality of liberal discourse and liberal ontology is then filled with cruelty, repression, narrow-mindedness, and ignorance. Instead of opening the doors of forgiveness, repentance, and reform for people, the liberal mainstream relentlessly bad-mouths and castigates people without counting their own flaws and shortcomings. Take the recent feud between Chris Cuomo and Jeff Zucker for example. Something as natural and trivial as polyamory and polygamy is turned into pettiness by liberal discourse and liberal ontology, and it is then weaponized to hurt people. Thus, the sheer lack of compassion and mercy on the part of liberal discourse and liberal ontology is what fostered Western populism and radicalism. Foucault is one of the more famous Western philosophers and writers to stress the cruelty and repression which is at the heart of liberal discourse and liberal ontology.
There is also a certain level of hypocrisy on the part of those who propagate or pander to liberal discourse and liberal ontology. For example, India has diplomatically boycotted Beijing’s Winter Olympics because of China’s issue of Muslim Uyghurs, without taking into account the recurring abuses of Muslims in India. Also, the Biden Administration seems to have forgotten the scapegoating of Muslims in order to justify an illegal policy of global hegemony which in turn killed, displaced, and abused millions of Muslims over the course of approximately the last two decades. The policy of American global hegemony also led to the creation of ISIS in the heart of the Middle East after the Bush Administration upended law and order in Iraq. Now, by killing one ISIS leader after another, successive American administrations have become the arsonists who are taking credit for putting out the fire. Thus, Biden and Modi should stop using Muslim Uyghurs as a prop for petty power politics which are oriented towards the abuse and repression of disadvantaged groups like Muslims and other minorities.
Also at the core of liberal discourse and ontology is the difference in the scope of what constitutes reality in liberal discourse and liberal ontology, versus the scope of what constitutes reality in basic human culture and a universal way of life. There is a narrowness of the weltanschauung at the heart of liberal discourse and ontology, whereas the weltanschauung at the heart of basic human culture and a universal way of life is far-reaching and wide.
I was once a very easy going and lazy person, somewhere along the lines of Rousseau’s “Natural Man” in my youth. My transformation into a philosopher and writer beginning in my mid-twenties occurred as a reaction to the cruelty and repression of the system which I encountered in my early to mid twenties through little or no fault of my own. There are many people who have experienced the same cruelty and repression from the system which I have experienced, but many of these people do not have the means or the wherewithal to address the cruelty and repression like I have through literary and writing efforts. Therefore, my blogging and my literary efforts are on behalf of many people who have been given the short end of the stick by the system, and by no means do I write these things for self-serving purposes. And ultimately, the point of addressing the cruelty and repression is to try and make the environment less cruel and less repressive in the future.