Vandalism

Something that has really been bugging me lately, well most of the year, but it has really picked up in the last week is on campus vandalism. Now, as is my general policy, I do not participate in on campus social events. There are a variety of reasons for that which will not be discussed in this post, and have probably actually been discussed in previous posts. My point is I do not have a campus wide experience with vandalism. I do not know how much vandalism is going on around campus aside from in my own hallway and whatever is reported in the school newspaper. I do not read the school newspaper that much, but I other people do and I over hear them talking about it.


This is the evidence I have that vandalism is a serious problem on campus. At the beginning of the year I would put signs on my door usually with Ayn Rand quotes or other Libertarian and Objectivist quotes. Obviously, those messages do not sit well with the stereotypical college student, especially on my campus, and in response people defaced them and tore them down. There was also an anti-environmentalist sign I put in the bathroom to counter environmentalist signs like, "Save water and the earth will love you." I will discuss the irrationality of environmentalism in a later post. However, returning to this post, as one can guess, that sign was ripped down probably three or four times a week. Also, it was reported to me that my Resident Assistant was actually responsible for ripping down my bathroom sign a few times.

This just illustrates that vandalism is not and underclassman phase, but prevalent in the entire college even the student authority figures. Furthermore, there is a bulletin board the RA changes every month, which is also defaced every month. Students rip it apart or write stuff on it. Recently, it was reported that some students carved swastikas in the apartments the college rents for upperclassmen. There is, of course, another problem with swastikas, but for now I am just going to address the vandalism aspect. Finally, apparently there have been campus wide discussions on vandalism hosted by the college president. This final point presents how wide the problem must be if there has to be campus wide discussions on the topic. My problem with all this vandalism is that it violates one of man's natural rights: the right to property. The right to property is actually closely related to the right to life, which I discuss in the post first part of the "My Philosophy" series of post. As a side note I will have additional parts to that series, they will just not be presented sequentially. In any event, my problem is that if these students are going around violating individual's natural rights it is like these people have learned nothing. These people are completely devoid of all knowledge.

Man's natural rights are the basic foundation for morality. Even several altruistic moral systems deal with the natural rights in some way. For example, in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam the ten commandments state murder is bad and stealing is bad. Two natural rights are covered right there, life and property. Also the intellectual jump from stealing is vicious to vandalism is vicious is not a great feat. It is very simple. It is like a side step. However, these people apparently do not get any of it. Well, to their credit, they know murder is bad, but that is so simple. That is like the very beginning of natural rights, everyone gets that one. So these people are not that smart. Additionally, stealing and vandalism are really not that far off from murder. They both stem from the natural right to life. This just captures how ignorant these people are.


I also believe that the school, and the accepted morality of this age, is not helping the situation. Sure the school has their campus wide discussion on vandalism, but the school is actually just contradicting itself. According to the false morality this school supports, and most people accept, vandalism is acceptable. This false morality is the product of the heinous multi-cultural movement, which my school is actually a huge proponent of. My school actually has an Office of Multicultural Affairs, granted it is combined with the Office of Community Living. However, even the Office of Community Living points out how the multi-culturalist movement is expanding and becoming a larger and larger problem. Multi-culturalism supports two concepts that are in direct conflict with natural rights, specifically property. Multi-culturalism supports collectivism and ignorance. Of course, multi-culturalists do not call the concepts collectivism and ignorance. Actually, they might not mind the term collectivism, but the term they use is community. So, now it is clear that the Office of Community Living just perpetuates the problem. Also, I stated earlier that I had an RA, but at my school they are actually called CA's, Community Assistants.

I was considering keeping my school as anonymous as possible, so I was going to use generic terms, but then I decided I did not really care any more. As for ignorance, the multi-culturalists use a variety of terms for this, acceptance and tolerance being the most prominent. I discussed in an earlier post what tolerance was, and it certainly was not acceptance, so if I am refer to the multi-culturalist term for ignorance I will use acceptance. Anyway I will now explain how the multi-culturalist movement pushing for acceptance and community actually breeds ignorance and collectivism, which make vandalism acceptable.


Firstly, I will begin with ignorance. Multi-culturalism is actually very close to the moral relativist movement. Many moral relativists are also multi-culturalists. Moral relativists who are not multi-culturalists are probably closer to people who desire power, people who practice absolute selfishness, which is really just a variation of dependence. The teaching of multi-culturalism is that truth is not attainable or incredibly difficult to attain by one person. Multi-culturalism also points out several logical fallacies that the western world followed, colonialism and slavery key among them. They argue mentalities that produce colonialism and slavery are one-minded, closed-minded, not of the group, because those westerners did not speak with the Native Americans, Aztecs, and Africans to understand their way of life and that enslaving them, killing them, colonizing areas was bad. I just call this ignorance. If they just used their brain they could have figured out, "Hey, treating these people like shit does not make sense." I also want to set the record straight that I am not completely against colonialism. That is a completely separate issue and I will discuss it later.

Actually, it also has much to do with property, determining what is owned and unowned. What I am really against about colonialism is really just the problems that came with it. Once again, slavery and murder. In any event, the multi-culturalist argument is that in order to avoid slavery and murder people need to come together because slavery and murder are products of closed minds. Consequently, multi-culturalists want lots of people of lots of different cultures to come together to be as far away from one minds and closed minds. This, of course, presents and enormous problem. Cultures are different, meaning that there are different concepts of morality, different concepts of virtue. One culture thinks homosexuality is fine while another thinks its a vice, one culture believes in Allah another believes in Yahweh. When cultures present contrasting differences both cultures cannot be right. There cannot be an Allah and a Yahweh because Allah said he was the only god to this group of people while Yahweh said he was the only god to this group of people.

Of course, Allah and Yahweh are both monotheistic religions, so they could be the same god, except Allah told his people completely different things from what Yahweh told his people. As for homosexuality it cannot be both good and bad because there is only one truth there is one virtue and one vice. However, this is exactly what multiculturalism said. It said all cultures were to be accepted. Multi-culturalists argue, "How can Americans say African tribal cultures are inferior to their technological capitalist culture?" One is not wrong, one is not right, they are just different. The multi-culturalist's fear is that if he makes a judgment as to one culture being better than another culture then he is thinking like a racist, like a murderer, like the Europeans. Therefore, every culture must be accepted, and once every culture is accepted then moral relativism is born. No one can be wrong, no one can be vicious, no one can be ignorant, when every culture is accepted. However, that is exactly what these people become, wrong, vicious, and ignorant. To the multi-culturalist natural rights are as valuable as shit. They are just different they are not right or wrong. So, while all the multi-culturalists got down on their hands and knees praying to each cultural difference morality and truth were forgotten. Just to illustrate how ignorant these people are ask a multi-culturalist what he thinks of Nazism. Unless the man is indeed a Nazi, and if he is he is certainly not a multi-culturalist, the individual will say that Nazism is bad. In turn, then point out that they argue all cultures should be respected. The person will then make some excuse that cultures that are not multi-cultural, or not accepting, are not to be accepted.

Then you must point out this person is not being a multi-culturalist because he is excluding a culture. Then you also must point out how most cultures make judgments and exclusions. No culture, accept that of the multi-culturalist, is multi-cultural. It actually goes directly against the concept of having a culture. Of course, none of these fools see the problem. None of these fools see that while they bent down praying to every cultural difference they forgot the difference between right and wrong. They have equated natural rights to Nazism. Consequently, vandalism is fine and dandy. These people now accept every culture, they have no idea what is right and what is wrong. When everything is accepted vandalism is just as good as singing Kumbaya. Just to point out how true this is, I heard a college student say in all seriousness, "I am not against vandalism." When multi-culturalism wins the day, it is the Vandals who are truly victorious.


Now onto the second push of multi-culturalsim, community, or more appropriately collectivism. As was already stated, multi-culturalism pushes for several individuals or differing cultures to come together. However, the goal of a multi-culturalist is not to make better individuals. Even when the multi-culturalist remembers his great enemies he does not think of Cortes or Columbus, he thinks of the Europeans. The multi-culturalists sees actions as a product of a culture, and a culture belongs to a group not an individual. When the multi-culturalist brings individuals of differing cultures together he really does not care about the individual, he cares about the culture. It is also important to remember the multi-culturalist hates a closed mind. The closed mind belongs to the individual. The individual is concerned with what he believes not what the group thinks. The multi-culturalist wants the later. The multi-culturalist wants open minds, accepting minds, so the group can think not the individual. It is also important to remember that the multi-culturalist sees slavery and murder as products of not coming together. There is a small contradiction there because the multi-culturalist sees its enemy as the Europeans, not individuals, but the multi-culturalist wants a group not individuals. Basically, they create the same evil villain who just thinks a differently. Everything about multi-culturalism concerns a community being formed and individuals being forgotten. There is certainly a sense of sharing and altruism among multi-culturalists. They all openly share their values, none are rejected and none are withheld. Also, none of them believe they can understand how live on their own; therefore, they all live just so they can come together as a group and discover what is best.

Here is another great contradiction, they come together to improve, but when you accept everything there is no where to progress. When African tribal cultures are equally good to technological capitalistic cultures only stagnation results. However, as one can see in multi-culturalism the individual is not important the collective is important. It is about humanity living as harmoniously as possible not about the individual living as happily as possible. Therefore, when a collective is created, when the individual is destroyed, property is destroyed, both in the literal and figurative senses. Some multi-culturalists will argue property is not destroyed because everyone owns a little piece. This just hearkens to everyone is a little right. It is also the same approach with the Native Americans and Europeans. Clearly, the Native Americans could not own all of America, but they do not want the Europeans to own any of it; therefore, they argue that they just should have shared the land. Now, when property is shared to that extent, then no one really owns anything. The bulletin in the hallways does not really belong to the CA, it belongs to the whole floor, everyone can contribute. The idea is that when everyone owns a little piece everyone will respect the property because no one will want to destroy their own property. Basically, they are trying to use man's selfishness against himself. However, this is exactly when people disrespect the property. If it was an individual's personal property he could do whatever he wanted to it, but when it belongs to the group everyone kind of has to agree, nothing is really done, no one is really satisfied. It just does not belong to anyone. In turn, people just do whatever the hell they want to do to whatever property. Since everyone owns a little piece, no one will be satisfied with it, I mean it is like a tree in the middle of the woods, un-owned woods that is. It is absolutely worthless. In turn vandalism becomes fine. It is a bulletin board of the collective, if one person vandalizes it, or a bunch vandalize it, who is going to tell them to stop? Unfortunately, lots of private property gets caught in the cross fire because (1) these people are ignorant, and (2) in their mind property does not exist any more.


In the end multi-culturalism produces a bunch of fools, running around, destroying everything. In order to counter vandalism, truth must be taught, acceptance must be abandoned, rational judging must be understood, and the individual must be understood and praised, and the importance of the collective must be falsified.

Comments

No comments yet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working