Monday, April 02, 2007

Those Evil Liberals: What a Bushist thinks the Left thinks, I think.

Comment is hardly required; sometimes you just need to let their own sincere words stand in all their awesome majesty:

Union of Evil Overlords
Entropy and Evil Part 2 « Sake White

Global Warming and Global Cooling good indicators of things becoming less entropic or having more entropy. As things cool, energy is lost and current energy is harder to collect. As things get hot, more energy pours in and therefore more can be collected, if only by solar panels. So when the Left says Global Warming is bad, it is only bad for them because they fight for entropy while I would prefer a slower slide into decay and destruction. The Left says any change will spell people’s doom. They said it about Iraq. They said it about social security. They said it about immigration. They said it about welfare after Bush senior. Everything that is bad and is decaying fast in this world, is something the Left is happy to keep the way it is, and if you try to change it like Bush tried to change the Middle East, then the Left will use entropy to unmake you and your plans. Don’t be fooled, the Left’s views on destruction isn’t the same as ours, Baphometbut they will exploit people’s good intentions and sense of self-preservation if they can.

Now, dealing with the Islamic Jihad in Europe is also a question of decay.
Thomas has an interesting article here about Britain. I would quote Melanie Phillips but I’m time constrained. Suffice it to say that civilizations thrive by fighting against entropy, through building up stores of energy, food, knowledge, technology, and progress. The Left and their allies seek to overthrow, through subversive and revolutionary means, all the gains that humanity has made. And they are not above using the fruits of Western civilization, law, international accord, and so forth to help them. Beware the Left, for their lies sound as honey and their lips leak with the blood of the unborn

The problem with giving practical first amendment rights to every fool out there is that a fool with a good template can look as good or better than people who are not fools.

I'm not going to argue this from a left-right perspective. I'm a centrist on the Left-Right axis and this sort of talk insults both sides of my brain. It's not what the argument is for or against, it's that it's a really, really amazingly STUPID argument. Any argument that is basically founded on the idea - as this, and the materials cited later by the author - that "anything I do not understand must be wrong" is the acme of stupid.

When this is your argument, the politics you THINK you advocate are irrelevant. In this case, the author's own words strongly suggest they have no measurable grasp of the essence of, Liberalism, Conservatism or the socio-political priorities of either Left or Right.

As the saying goes, you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

People who "advocate entropy" do not fear change, nor do they say that "any change will spell doom." Whatever you think of "advocating entropy," or whether that is an accurate statement about the Left, it's utterly contradictory with the next concept, which amounts to Cartoon Conservatism; that any change, no matter how trivial or overdue, will lead to the breakdown of civilization.

This is what we refer to as a "flawed argument." No, I go farther; this is a fundamentally flawed premise that demonstrates that the person advocating it hasn't a sufficient grasp of the first principles to be argued with.

The author, apparently quoting himself, cites this comment made in response to a post at another blog as persuasive:

It is easy to know what is true or not true about a claim, but that’s not the difficulty you see. It is figuring out why people on the Left act like they believe in the things that they say. Do they believe in the things that they say about America and the Islamic Jihad? That’s tricky, because of their doublethink. Triplethink, quadruplethink, and so forth. The smarter a person is on the Left, the more conflicting thoughts they can hold in their heads simultaneously at once. It makes analyzing the motivations of the Left, very hard, even if analyzing the truth of their claims becomes easier. (obviously people who don’t know themselves, won’t be able to know anything else for that matter, so it becomes easier to discard their opinions, plans, and descriptions) [emphasis mine]

Yes, so much easier to simply dismiss it all as nonsense, rather than try to grasp the idea that opposing a blatantly evil and unconstitutional war is not the same as not supporting the warriors, who, after all, have rather little say in the matter. Despising the President is not the same as spitting on the flag. Demanding he be impeached is not disrespect of the office of Commander in Chief. I demand it because I DO respect the office and am unwilling to accept it being further sullied.

A person trained in classic liberal thought - which, believe it or not, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being Liberal politically - has no difficulty with admitting that Islamic Jehad may well have persuasive, even very telling arguments, without conceding for a moment that those arguments justifiy blowing up people in wholesale lots. For the Religion of Peace, it's a contradiction in terms.

Of course, a person making that observation must also concede that no matter how seductive the vision of liberty, justice and democracy in the Middle East, it in no way justifies blowing up people in wholesale lots either. Indeed, for those valuing individual liberty, forcing democracy on anyone is a contradiction in terms.

The fundamental premise in this series is that evil is an external, malevolent force; the author directly dismisses the idea that evil is the result of individual choice. This of course leads to the comfortable belief that as long as they are on the Side of Good, they cannot possibly do any evil at all, no matter the depth of the pile of dismembered corpses this reasoning leads to.

I point dryly at a stack of history YEA high in refutation of that premise.

Jesus was pretty straightforward on this; "By their fruits ye shall know them." A pretty tree with "bitter fruit" is firewood. And my, the secductive simplicity and sense of purpose projected by Conservatism over the last two decades has produced a harvest of very bitter fruits.*

There is no real difficulty in discerning the difference between good and evil. The fact that it is said to be difficult to tell, and difficult to understand how a Loving God could permit it to exist is easy.

People who wrestle with such things often do it in order to rationalize away their own culpability and their own tendency to inflict harm on others for their own comfort and satisfaction.

And if God permits free will, the choice to do the wrong thing - and the ability to delude ourselves that it's really the Right Thing - is inherent in that equation.

Willful ignorance, self-deception and the willingness to accept and repeat falsehoods about the actions and presumed motivations of others - these are evil, and they are choices. In the face of that fact, the justifications, political, religious, social or familial may be dismissed as irrelevant, for if the proponent wished to benefit any of these things, they would be making quite different choices - for no good comes from evil, save in the reaction and adaptation of others to it.

*The author concedes that this extremely bad pun is in poor taste and in no way should be taken to suggest that all gays are bitter. He does, however, suggest that being a Gay Republican is a lot like being a "Chicken for Col. Sanders." Perhaps "Log Cabin Conservatives" would be a better name.

tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article illustrated with products from Shirt Lords (Union of Evil Overlords) and The Horror Haven (Baphomet poster). Please consider them for help decorating your evil liberal bodies and lairs.

No comments:


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Popular Posts

News Feeds

Me, Elsewhere