Openness To Individuals Without Discrimination Is Not Known To Be A Proper Criterion Of Value

Added 6-16-08
Openness To Individuals Without Discrimination Is Not Known To Be A Proper Criterion Of Value
There is such a large range of circumstances in which such openness would endanger one. Generally, the less you know of someone, the more you might use discrimination based on group averages. With strangers, you know only what they look like, their age, gender, race and not much else. To claim that it is immoral to use that information to save your freedom-FROM-aggression, is not known to be true, but such a claim does serve the cause of freedom-FOR-aggression. One may observe that those who want freedom-for-aggression, because they or their relatives are street criminals, or because they want power (e.g. leftists), are the ones who try to impose anti-discrimination. There is negligible hesitation in using state aggression for the anti-discrimination programs, which invariably favor mainly groups which have higher crime rates, and especially of stranger violence.The more damaging an idea is, the more it must depend on openness and trust, to get spread around. It is this way to such extent, that one does well to suspect, that the more a suggested belief would command openness, trust and anti-discrimination, and specifically regarding strangers; the more damaging that belief will be.
Quoting Daniel Larison on Globalisation :"I am inherently suspicious of people who talk about 'openness,' because this is the sort of rhetorical bludgeon that is used to push policies that do not, in fact, serve the national interest. To be against 'openness' sounds bad, because it suggests that you must want to live in solitary confinement in a dungeon with no doors. Why, you just might be against 'the open society,' which is certainly very bad, even though few societies more effectively condition and police the thinking of their members than the 'open' ones. Part of that conditioning is the deployment of this rhetoric that valorises 'openness.'”
JB comments: One should indeed be suspicious of that which first tells you to value openness, as this is a platform that any sort of false and damaging idea can use to piggyback on, and then close off behind it. Intimidation or browbeating, false dilemma for purposes of smearing, all of these are at least suggested in the above quote, as part of "this rhetoric that valorises 'openness'."
As I said in an earlier post:
Bad ideas, even insofar as they are damaging, need people to be open and undiscriminating rather than the reverse. Thus, a kind of selection-value, resembling natural selection, arises in favor of bad ideas that promote social and intellectual openness; which is the exact opening that they need. Is this plausibly a coincidence? If a sexually transmitted virus caused people to become more promiscuous, it would be obvious why this trait was selected-for. A cultural infectious agent, which carries only the information needed to get itself transmitted (e.g. openness-as-an-ideal) looks like the stripped down remainder of a larger message which has degenerated, like the organs of a parasite. [From: The Self-Liquidating Society Which Values Openness & Anti-Discrimination To The End ]
If there's even a slightly suspicious note, as of inconsistency or special pleading, in what you're told, but with urgency on it, your question may well be:
How does this serve the power-greed of officialdom or its professoriate?
Added 6-16-08:
Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Sabotage Of Morals Which Arises From Valuing Openness
Since being open to the worst, is harder than being open to what is not the worst; there are higher openness value-units to be won, by being open to worse and worse things. It is contrary to all nature, to have such an openness-valuing practice; this is why it is only urged on others. Suspiciously, it might be noted, that a mental infectious agent need specify NO MORE THAN: command openness (on others), to spread and parasitize indefinitely far. If a biological infectious agent were able to highly influence a concept or idea so as to get itself transmitted, it would have to be a very simple idea, if possible at all. The extreme simplicity of the imperative mood, with its one-word commands often meaning some physical action, would have to be the prime candidate, since the genetic complexity of viruses and bacteria is very low.
This is why I nominate the command of 'open!' as it could hardly be simpler, it resembles physical action, and it with utmost efficiency, serves the minimum needs of an infectious agent. As for the agent itself, if biological, I would nominate the KSHV/ HHV8 herpesvirus.
Added 7-28-08 from: Saturday, July 26, 2008

Obama The Openness-Valuer Threatens Civilization
Quoted from this source: Obama "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down." Especially disturbing is not only the implication that Israel should be overrun, but that the "walls between the countries with the most and those with the least" should be brought low. This would guarantee the destruction of civilization, as essentially all our investments in higher productivity presuppose that there not be endless additional labor at continually lower rates, to displace that capital and those technologies. When you go backward on technology for many years running and throughout the world, a vortex down into a dark age ensues. This would be Obama's goal, since he also wishes to mobilize hostile Islam against civilization, against Israel, Hellenic Cyprus, and any place else that must wall out the backward and viciously low. Civilization has walls because there are people like Obama's relatives out there; Americans will be too proud to elect that which would have us value openness to the savage. The savage can indeed offer nothing in the way of values, but to try to get the more civilized to be more open to savagery and its migrations.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 7-28-08 from: Sunday, July 27, 2008

Very Vulgar Openness-Idealization From Flat-World Friedman
As found here: The Strategy of Openness, Revisited. The title of this site does allude to the Open Society and its Enemies, but definitely not because Popper had the same idea as Friedman, Blair, Soros and others, rhetorically valuing openness itself and above the minimal standards of civilization. Popper meant by Open Society an open-ENDED one, which had not closed off its options with a rigid theory like Marxist historical determinism. Friedman means just openness as a value which can't be questioned, and which may be forced on other nations as well as on the loyal citizenry here. Valuing openness to aggression and the spread of evils, and flattening resistance would be his implicit ideal. Openness to the bad is not good, no amount of manipulation of fakey ideals like openness can change that. Such an openness-valuing conscience then must be open to every evil, and flattened as flat can be. Since no one can practice that, and live long, it must be case of urging on others what one regards as bad for oneself and one's family. The problem here is not so much hypocrisy, it is that no one can live by openness as an ideal to be applied radically, yet this doesn't get pointed out, but hypocrisy does; which reinforces the fake ideal.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-26-08 from: Saturday, August 9, 2008

An Evil Which Proceeds From Basing Political Discourse On The Concept Of Rights
Inevitably one gets deceitfully selective championing of victims of rights violations. When one looks at the individual case too much by itself, or that of some minority group which is said to be hard done by, one loses the context of the overall level of aggression in the society. Political discourse should start from the premise that citizens owe loyalty to each other, in at least that case where the foreigner enters, increasing the overall aggression inside the borders. Next there is the loyalty owed, of citizens to one another, to remain allied against those who would take way from freedom-FROM-aggression, yet who are presumptive citizens until they are killed or imprisoned. In terms of the language of rights, there is a right to freedom from aggression, but only if the alliance of loyalty of citizens to one another, against the foreigner or domestic aggressor who takes way from that right, or would do so, has got established first. Without those sovereign loyalties, rights have yet to obtain in that territory.