Assessing memetic weapons capability of neoconservatism (Part #1)

1. Pride
2. Avarice
3. Gluttony
4. Lust
5. Sloth
6. Wrath
7. Envy

Conceptual sins as logical fallacies
Cognitive distortions as "sins"
Strategic "sins"
Knowledge-handling "sins"
Towards a logico-mathematical formalization of "sin" (Annex)
Deployment of memetic weapons
References

[Parts: Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]

The focus here is on the distortion of information and insight that characterizes the neoconservatism that now has as its agenda the hegemonic domination of the world [more | more | more]. Such distortion is however consonant with other forms of fundamentalism and single-factor thinking, even those associated with some narrow forms of technocracy.

The arguments follow from earlier explorations into groupthink (Groupthink: the Search for Archaeoraptor as a Metaphoric Tale, 2002) and psycho-social twistedness (Twistedness in Psycho-social Systems: challenge to logic, morality, leadership and personal development, 2004), especially that arising from those who perceive themselves uniquely privileged by having been "chosen" or "born again" (Strategic Opportunities of the Twice Born: reflections on systemic camouflage of mass deception, 2004). Of particular interest is the link between the narrow and exclusive quality of the thinking of neoconservatism with the religious mandate it derives from fundamentalist supporters -- or opponents that can be appropriately demonised to reinforce the divine mandate on which that religious support is believed to be grounded.

In religious discourse -- fundamental to the faith-based governance now explicitly preferred by the American people -- the distortion can then be most usefully highlighted in terms of "sin" or "vice", and notably the classic "seven deadly sins" or the corresponding "seven vices". The argument here is that the evident phenomena associated with sin derive from a distortion of attitude on which it is much more important to focus -- as the prime hindrance to any appropriate form of individual or collective development. In the latter case this relates to hindering the emergence of appropriate forms of governance and response to threat (Transforming the Encounter with Terrorism, 2002)

It is ironic, and characteristic of neoconservatism, that such underlying "sinful" distortions of attitude are poorly acknowledged in preference to the more evident manifestations of their consequences in morality or ethical behaviour. This displacement, notably when deliberate, might be cited as an example of a cardinal sin as explored here. By the same token, extolling the matching redemptive "virtues" can be deliberately undertaken such as to reinforce the sin they are believed to alleviate. This distorted appeal to virtue, so demeaning of its essential attitudinal value, might also be cited as a cardinal sin.

The following arguments are articulated in response to Christian fundamentalism, notably as it affects faith-based governance. Analogous arguments could of course be developed in relation to Islamic and other forms of fundamentalism -- favouring their respective forms of faith-based governance -- at the origin of so many conflicts around the world inspired by religion. Ironically however, despite their foreseen "clash", they are each driven by an honourable preoccupation with rejection of "sin" as a hindrance to relation to the divine -- as each understands this. But it is to be expected that their understandings will be used in the development and deployment of memetic weapons in the 21st century. These need to be better understood to forestall a memetic arms race and its consequences.

[Parts: Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]