Tuesday, June 07, 2011

You Shall Have No Gods Before the New York Times

As we know, liberal politicians are generally loath to articulate their actual principles, because those principles are unpopular if not offensive to a clear majority of Americans.

Therefore, they have developed the dual-track strategy of, on the one hand, defensively concealing their true motivations under clouds of rhetoric that is at once empty of specific content, but, for that very reason, potentially omnipotent in its reach, such as "helping the little guy," "diversity," "tolerance," "fairness," and "social justice."

In other words, if one's first principle is, say, "social justice," this term is so elastic as to authorize virtually anything to attain it -- whatever "it" is.

Never mind that the Constitution makes no reference to the term, and with good reason, since the Founders were well aware of how such mischievous rhetoric could be used by demagogues to inflame the passions of the mob. Let the heirheads of the French Revolution speak of such laughty principles.

The other prong of the liberal strategy -- to which any conservative prongee can personally attest -- is slander, vilification, and smearing. The reason for this second tactic is the corollary of the first.

That is, because our ideas are both popular and susceptible to fact and logic, it is necessary to attack our motivations. This means that the liberal needn't do battle with us in the arena of ideas, but in a kind of rhetorical underworld where they are much more comfortable, as they are already acclimated to the darkness.

One might say that, Rather than an ideological strategy, the Left is a lexicographical tactic. But Reducing another’s thought to its supposed motives prevents us from understanding it (Don Colacho's Aphorisms).

For example, I would really need solid proof before branding a particular individual a racist, or misogynist, or homophobe, or greedy bastard. But conservatives are routinely accused of these evils with no proof whatsoever.

Rather, being conservative is its own proof, so to speak. The charge is a metaphysical/theological one, not dissimilar to our belief that man is a fallen creature, except that our principle applies to everyone, not just our political opponents (which in turn is an important reason why we oppose big government).

A couple of years ago, Howard Dean said that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals don't like to see children go to bed hungry at night. Such a manichaean worldview must be comforting in its childish simplicity; but not really, because it is necessarily persecutory, since it means that the liberal is surrounded by vicious people who wish for children to suffer. That's got to feel a little creepy.

Similarly, liberal racers who are obsessed with racial animus are undoubtedly comforted by their own nobility and moral rectitude, but this virtue is purchased at the high price of being condemned to a Nazi-like country in which more than half its citizens secretly embrace a doctrine of racial superiority. This is not a recipe for happiness or peace of mind.

Truly, as Taranto observed yesterday, liberals are not ready for a black president. The liberal cannot just be "enlightened" about race, and let it go; rather, he must be obsessed with the "racists" under every bed and behind every bush:

'As early as April 2008 we learned that it was "racist" to call then-Sen. Obama "elitist" (which means "arrogant," which means "uppity") or "out of touch" (another word for "other"). In August 2008, "skinny" joined the list. Slate's Timothy Noah observed:

"When white people are invited to think about Obama's physical appearance, the principal attribute they're likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama's other physical attributes can't help coming off as a coy walk around the barn."

'Noah added that this was foretold by the prophet Fonzie. In February 2010, "professor" joined the list of putative racial slurs. Harvard's Charles Ogletree said "professor" is another synonym for "uppity," and he's a professor, so he should know.'

If you are a conservative and haven't yet been slurred as a racist, it just means that you're not trying. You haven't yet appeared on the liberal radar. Ironically, what this means is that the conservative does indeed inhabit a persecutory world, except the persecution is real.

We are not complaining, mind you. But we constantly hear and read about our own racism, xenaphobia (hatred of lesbian warriors), greed, misogyny, anti-intellectualism, etc. If there were any truth to the smears, they might actually sting, or at least provoke embarrassment. As it is, it's just a little surreal, and surreality is not without its charms, so long as one is lucid as it is occurring, and the bullets are only verbal and not metal.

Exaggeration? Hardly. For example, a few days ago, Nicholas Kristoff, star fifth columnist of the New York Times, penned a surreal idiotorial in which he explained how tea party conservatives would like the United States to resemble Pakistan. That being the case, what else do you need to know about us? After all, we want to enforce traditional Islamic values, behead petty criminals, and abolish civilian rule of the military. Who wouldn't detest such menaces to republican government?

We often say that contemporary left/liberalism is not so much an ideology but a substitute religion, hence the emotionalism and moralism that attach to it. It also becomes the "crusade" around which the liberal activist organizes his life, thus his source of meaning and identity (which amount to the same thing).

And because his politics is so entangled with his identity, it is difficult to detach from them. One loses one's perspective, and also cannot keep things in their proper place, largely because the vertical has been collapsed into the horizontal.

Therefore, horizontal things are inevitably imbued with the power and significance of the vertical, while vertical things become idols and graven images. Contemporary liberalism would be unthinkable in the absence of this idolatry.

For example, the newly named editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, is refreshingly transparent in disclosing her liberal idolatry, in that she frankly regards the Times as God: "In my house growing up, the Times substituted for religion.... If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth."

How oppressive. But I have friends and relatives who would essentially say the same thing if they were as honest with themselves as Abramson. In fact, we are all familiar with the liberal paradox that "truth doesn't exist, and only I know it," but rarely do we hear it expressed so candidly by one of their heaviest eliteweights.

It reminds us of a comment by then Cardinal Ratzinger, that although Christianity developed "its most effective form in Europe, it is necessary to say that in Europe a culture has developed that constitutes the absolutely most radical contradiction not only of Christianity but of the religious and moral traditions of humanity."

The important point is that this new ideology is not a negation of the Judeo-Christian metaphysic, nor its contrary; rather, it is its converse, i.e., an inverted form of it.

In fact, if you will review your Ten Commandments, you will see at a glance that doctrinaire liberalism embodies a mirror image of them. But I guess I don't have to belaborate the point, since I have apparently already posted on their sacred dreckalogue.

21 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

...the liberal is surrounded by vicious people who wish for children to suffer. That's got to feel a little creepy.

DH works with a guy who once baldly stated that he's convinced that each day, conservatives/ Republicans get out of bed in the morning and gleefully think about whose life they're going to ruin. Of course, he's mostly surrounded by liberals, so even though the thought should be creepy he seemed pretty comfortable declaring it with no fear of repercussion; thus even if he believes it, he doesn't really believe it.

6/07/2011 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Ironically, what this means is that the conservative does indeed inhabit a persecutory world, except the persecution is real.

Oh, yeah - I'm pretty sure the guy knew DH was a conservative when he made that statement. He's also been "jokingly" called a Nazi on numerous occasions, because he's blond and conservative, so the connection is, like, totally obvious and hilarious. And if you don't think that's funny, well, you just can't take a joke.

6/07/2011 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

I think I'll be applying a heavier hand in deleting comments that are stupid, silly, vile or tangentially agenda-driven, since they just clog up the works. Thus, there is probably no reason to respond to trolls unless your comment exhibits LOL level wittiness, in which case, go for it. And of course, there is never any ban on meaningful disagreement and good faith questions.

But as Prager says, we value clarity over agreement, and we already clearly understand the positions of those with whom we disagree, so there is really no point in reminding us of our differences.

6/07/2011 10:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

By the way, even troll comments that are actually leavened with some wit will not be deleted, since we enjoy laughing at ourselves.

6/07/2011 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"...Let the heirheads of the French Revolution speak of such laughty principles."

It would be far more laughable if they weren't such a bunch of Weiner's.

"...The other prong of the liberal strategy -- to which any conservative prongee can personally attest -- is slander, vilification, and smearing. The reason for this second tactic is the corollary of the first. "

Hey if you can't say nice things... you might just be a leftist. What other option is open to your closed mind?

"...xenaphobia (hatred of lesbian warriors)..."

Lol. Or should I say Oo-loo-loo-loo-loo lol!

6/07/2011 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

xenaphobia -- I'll volunteer to lay down the Law.

6/07/2011 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Ahhh, brilliant post and accessible (even to me!). What a coincidence (?) that what may be Ann Coulter's most meaningful book is released today...

"Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America"

I know some Times worshippers...dear enough people, just so VERY narrow-minded. After being friends for years, upon finding out that, no thank you I wouldn't be voting for Obama, suggested I question my real motives.

6/07/2011 12:12:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

This might be a good example of vilifying conservatives. The requirement of a photo ID to vote is a return to Jim Crow.

You can give the guy a hit if you want to, but essentially he makes the claim that a photo ID requirement deliberately disenfranchises the "poor" who can't afford such an expensive and unusual item.

I believe these laws are usually written to provide a free or low-cost ID to any voter who doesn't have a driver's license or other form of identification.

Can you even cash your welfare check without a picture ID? I suppose it will be a burden on the illegal aliens, the convicted felons, and those who need to vote in multiple precincts. Might need more than one, and that could get expensive.

6/07/2011 12:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Xena the Warrior Princess said...

I could chop up both of you wussy boys...

So, take home message, you ain't gonna get it.

6/07/2011 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

As the Bible says, "Let not [her] who straps on [her] armor boast h[er]self like [s]he who takes it off." (1 Kings 20:11)

You're such a tease.

6/07/2011 02:22:00 PM  
Anonymous flunky said...

Deleting silly and irrelevant comments makes sense. But it’d make more sense if there was a clearly posted comment policy.

But deleting well intentioned comments meant to add new perspectives to a debate (for the purpose of either deeper understanding or enjoying the pithy bon mot takedown retort), is messed up.

6/07/2011 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Therefore, they have developed the dual-track strategy of, on the one hand, defensively concealing their true motivations under clouds of rhetoric that is at once empty of specific content, but, for that very reason, potentially omnipotent in its reach

Apropos, Zombie today:

"...in order to lay claim to their 'but at least we’re not hypocrites' defense, liberals must necessarily paint themselves into an impossible corner, defining themselves as the ideology of amorality."

6/07/2011 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Funky said:
"But deleting well intentioned comments meant to add new perspectives to a debate (for the purpose of either deeper understanding or enjoying the pithy bon mot takedown retort), is messed up."

Wait, are you insinuating you actually have a new perspective to offer?
If so, we have been waiting for a very long time for it.

Or are you upset because you "meant" to offer a new perspective but, having not been able to come up with one you should be given a pass because you did afterall mean to?

I dunno, such
high-fallutin' intentions and meant tos are usually lost on us simple folk.
We tend to place value in good actions.

Afterall, I'm sure if you asked Lucifer if he had (or has) good intentions he would say:

"Why yes I most surely do. We have the best highway system around thanks to good intentions. Look around...this is the widest highway, no speed limits, you never have to wait on anyone (especially you know who), there's never any construction going on, and it's easy as hell to get from there to here."

I'll bet Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jihadists, etc., had good intentions to (or at least good in their own eyes).

The question you might wanna ask yerself is why are good intentions so important to you? What are they "good" for? Absolutely nothin'.

Okay, now would be a good time to provide that new perspective you were talkin' about.

6/08/2011 12:32:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"...xenaphobia (hatred of lesbian warriors)..."

LOL! No way! I'm all for lesbian warriors. I was one myself at one time. Now I'm a retired lesbian warrior.

Van and Mushroom: LOL!

6/08/2011 12:41:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Julie said:

"Of course, he's mostly surrounded by liberals, so even though the thought should be creepy he seemed pretty comfortable declaring it with no fear of repercussion; thus even if he believes it, he doesn't really believe it."

Aye. It's a real contradiction for most lefties. Some may actually have that fear and I think we see it occasionally on a wider scale(Wisconsin).
Particularly when there's enough organized lefties to stoke the fire.

I expect we will see more of an increase (in both fear and tantrums) if we get a real conservative President in '12, and if Obamascare, cap n' tax, etc., go down in flames.

6/08/2011 12:57:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"The liberal cannot just be "enlightened" about race, and let it go; rather, he must be obsessed with the "racists" under every bed and behind every bush:"

Ironically, they never see the actual racist in their bathroom mirror.

6/08/2011 01:07:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Obama has dark skin? Okay, now you're just being silly.

Race was brought up on another forum- and I was trying to explain to the beleagured commentor that there's no was to prove that you're not a racist, so save your breath.

Julie- curious thing: when I used to volunteer at the local emergency assistance program, the hired staff were all pretty left. But the volunteers, the boots on the ground? About 90% of us were conservative.

6/08/2011 04:41:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

We need to tap into the vast musical knowlege of the group, if we could.
I told them "I know some people..."

The HC (Happy Couple, in Bridespeak) are having trouble choosing a song for the Bride/Dad/Groom/Mom joint dance.

Current choice is "Teach Your Children Well" by CSN, which is a litle grim for a wedding and not very danceable.

Their parameters:
no country
no Beatles
no glurge
no overt love songs (the oog factor)

If it helps, their first dance song is "I Can't Give You Anything But Love", by Crosby.

I'm campaigning for "You're Nobody "til Somebody Loves You", the Dean Martin version.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. And yes, it has to be a song- instrumentals were proposed and vetoed.

Thanks, all.

6/08/2011 05:01:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

How about anything from Sinatra's most fully realized album, Songs For Swingin' Lovers, which is pretty much impossible to not like. Or swing to.

6/08/2011 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Sal - that's interesting about the emergency assistance program. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Re. music, I can't think of a good suggestion at the moment, but it does make me think it surprising that more people don't have a song or two about parents and kids. You'd think the wedding royalties would be a draw if nothing else.

At my brother's wedding a couple months ago they used Bett Midler's "Wind Beneath My Wings." Probably doesn't fit your criteria, and I'm not overly fond of that one, but in that context it was a major tearjerker. Somebody must have done a decent cover of it by now, though...

6/08/2011 08:58:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Sal!

I can't top your own suggestion or Bob and Julie's. but here's a few (some of which are tongue in cheek):

Strange Magic- ELO

Voices- Cheap Trick

Fire On The Mountain- Marshall Tucker Band

Guilty Of Love- Whitesnake

Are You Sure Hank Done It This Way?- Waylon Jennings

Living On Love- Alan Jackson

There Goes Another Love Song- The Outlaws

Poor Little Fool- Ricky Nelson

Daddy's Girl- Red Sovine

Time Of Your Life- Paul Anka

Hope that helps Sal. :^)

6/08/2011 01:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home