mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

This describes modern liberals such as the ones described in the title…

Excerpts from Kindergarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks by Evan Sayet

THE LAWS OF MODERN LIBERALISM
1. Indiscriminateness – the total rejection of the intellectual process – is an absolute moral imperative.
2. Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.
3. Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better.
4. The Modern Liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better.

“THE COROLLARIES"
1. The Modern Liberal may have personal standards but he must deny them and militate against their use and those who use them in the public arena.
2. Modern Liberals do not and cannot seek to better themselves or society. Instead they must lower others and society to their level.
3. Modern Liberals have secondary policies that are meant only to somewhat mitigate the greater suffering that their primary policies created or exacerbated.

At the Democrats’ national convention, at least half of the delegates – the most influential activists in the party, each one representing hundreds if not thousands of others in his or her local precinct – voted to eliminate the word “God” from their party’s platform. During this same session, these same Democrats voted to undermine the Jews of Israel by no longer recognizing Jerusalem as their capital. The Democrats weren’t finished, though. Before the session was out, they had voted to strike the word “rare” from the party’s abortion policy.

So what’s the Democrats’ beef with God? What do they have against the Jews of Israel? Why do they want abortions to be commonplace and frequent? These are just three questions – we Right-Thinking people have a thousand more. And they all come down to this: “Why does the Modern Liberal – the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party and throughout so much of America’s modern culture – seem to side in every case with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success?

First, it must be understood that the “Modern Liberal” is not a Classical Liberal like John F. Kennedy. In fact, the “Modern Liberal” is not liberal at all. The Modern Liberal is as much at war with liberal values as he is with conservative ones. Just consider the difference between Kennedy’s admonition to “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” and the Modern Liberal’s belief that your country should do virtually everything for you (see Barack Obama’s “Julia”). Meanwhile, being “Citizens of The World,” the Modern Liberal finds the notion of doing things for their country repugnant as provincialism is seen as nothing short of “xenophobic.”

Modern Liberalism is an entirely separate ideology, new in its prevalence – and now dominance in what we can call the Modern Liberal era (post World War II through today). In fact, we can call it Modern Liberalism only because they typically call themselves Liberals and any other word would make their prevalence and power appear less than it is. The modifier “Modern” is added to make it clear that they are not what they say they are or what the Liberals used to be. It is also essential to understand that, while Modern Liberalism is fully in control of today’s Democratic Party, not everyone who votes Democrat is a Modern Liberal. Many – like some union members, government workers and welfare recipients for example – may vote Democrat for practical and self-serving reasons rather than ideological ones.

Finally, while speaking in absolutes – as one does when describing adherents to an ideology (“The Marxist believes this,” or the “Buddhist does that”) – people are people and thus a mass of contradictions. They are in possession of limited information, personality quirks and other flesh-and blood realities that make an individual an individual.

Nonetheless, the laws of corollaries of Modern Liberalism appear so consistently as to make the Modern Liberal dangerous.

May be continued…

Retired669

I bet someone with your little bit of intelligence believes that cut and paste which is all most of you know how to do? If anyone needs to see what you conservatards are really like all they need to do is view this board daily and read your posts. They speak for themselves including the one you just posted.

Grugore

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

DJRich Loc: Western Pa

Conservatardism is retarded thinking squared

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

JMHO here but we all have indifference and sure we don't like things said, on both sides of the spectrum..We get angry and spew things even we, the author, may read later and say I said that??

Far too much trolling, name baiting and intentional disrespect shown in some of these threads..We're all here for one mutual goal, to better our Country..We care and share what we think is better..That none of us can deny..IT IS OUR MUTUAL GOAL....

Singling people out is not needed and only fuels the fire for more "hate" than rational dialogue...How about we just argue the topics at hand and not the people???????

And BTW--I've called some out too and then said to myself, if I really do not want to deal with them I can simply ignore them..Try it sometime, makes for a lot nicer reading and interaction....

And NO, I'm not criticizing here, just sharing~~~

Anigav6969

I don't even think President Barack Obama is a liberal....what has he done that's so liberal ?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Well, I don't think he's even "real' so we're good to go Ani... :D :D

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I often wonder who people are trying to convince, when the write such things, themselves I suspect. I used to find it amusing, but now find it alarming, when people accuse the "other side" of things their own "side" are equally guilty of, or at least they themselves are. Obstinate, disrespectful , argumentative, inconsiderate, dogmatic, incorrigible, deceptive, rude, these are some of the things one "side" accuses the other of that are equally applicable.

Now I understand that it is a mating call of sorts, a call for like minded folk to show up. Fortunately, those from both "sides" that exhibit such egregious behavior here, do not represent the majority of people who subscribe to these ideologies, out there, beyond the Ethernet. Unfortunately, those elected officials and the candidates for those positions, ALSO do not accurately represent the ideologies they claim to subscribe to.

Todays politician has only one firm stance and that is on anything that affects them personally. Everything else is up for bid. Conservative republicans "say" they are for smaller government and are willing to cut programs or funding - for anything that does not impact their districts, or their rich sponsors interests, in other words - themselves. Like wise moderate democrats "say" they are for individual rights, equal pay, etc., but make no efforts to do anything about them - for fear that it would have a negative impact on - themselves.

The bottom line is, there is little wrong with either ideology. It is the people who claim to represent them that are the problem. They either don't understand the fundamentals of "their" ideology - or don't care - as long as they get what they want. It is disturbing to me, that their fans and supporters, don't even understand that their "heroes" have sold them out and are using them for their own benefit. Getting them to believe and repeat the silly rhetoric - that has no basis in reality - and certainly does not affect their political or personal behavior in the slightest.

Who could draw 100% pay - and only work 25% of the time and convince people that "they're working" for them? Who would continue to defend and applaud such behavior? Who would try to do their work for them?

Grugore

Do you know what the original liberals believed in? They were actually pretty close to conservatives in their thinking. Todays liberals should be called what they really are. Communists.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

The thing is, they don't understand communism any better than you do. They don't really know WHAT they believe in. They're just being lead by the nose by idiot politicians, just like everybody else.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

Actually it's paraphrased. Quick get out your dictionary and look it up.

Regarding my post, the truth hurts don't it. You probably didn't read it and if you did you didn't understand it.

Grugore

Who says I don't understand communism?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I said they don't understand any BETTER than you do, making it relative. Whatever you understand, they understand less. It wasn't meant to be an insult.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

How the Modern Liberal Thinks continued...this DEFINITELY applies to the OPP members in the title.

First it must be understood that there are, in fact, two kinds of Modern Liberals – the True Believer and his Mindless Foot Soldier (most modern liberals on OPP). This is easy to miss since there is absolutely no difference between the two when it comes to the policies they support or oppose or in the rhetoric they employ in their efforts. They both follow the Laws and Corollaries of Modern Liberalism in every way, and they each end up working, only and always, on behalf of all that is evil, failed, and wrong and against all that is good, right, and successful. In fact, this may seem like a distinction without a difference. But it’s a distinction nonetheless – one that is essential in understanding how the Modern Liberal thinks.

What differentiates the True Believer from his Mindless Foot Soldier is found in Howard Zinn’s quotation, “Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable.” Keep in mind that Zinn was not some little known oddball that was plucked out of obscurity to help make my point. He was arguably the most beloved and influential Modern Liberal of all, a man who counts amongst his accomplishments that he is the author of the single most assigned text about America and American history in our nation’s primary schools and colleges.

The Mindless Foot Soldier subscribes to the first part of Zinn’s claim. He has for all intents and purposes been brainwashed – most significantly by the “education” system he first entered at the age of five and didn’t leave for almost two decades (and sometimes longer) – to believe that objectivity is impossible.
Since he believes that objectivity is impossible, the Mindless Foot Soldier does not and will not engage his intellect to seek out the rightful answers. Whatever he might discover through the process, he’s convinced, would be at best merely his own “point-of-view” – a point of view that, by definition, would be no more right and no more valid than any and every other.

Since he believes all points of view are equally right and equally valid, the Mindless Foot Soldier is convinced that anyone who would declare their own point of view right or another point of view wrong is and can only be a bigot (for their side) or a phobic (against the other).

May be continued…

L8erToots

I honestly believe that if most Liberals read Mein Kempt, they would be surprised (hopefully horrified) to see how much their ideologies are in line with Hitler's and how their hatred for Conservatives, Reblicans and corporations is the same level of hatred Hitler felt for the Jews. I agree that most don't understand communism and they also don't understand the difference between a democracy and a republic (and believe that America is a republic). I blame this on lack of education in both the schools and at home. Just my humble opinion.