If you don’t know about them, then here they are:

citizengo and HazteOir (in Spain)

Thanks to the liberal twit who put together an article on organizing by conservatives in Europe to tell us about many exciting new international developments.

 

The Rise Of Europe’s Religious Right

“For too long a time in Europe, pro-life people did not really say clearly and directly what they believe.” After years on the margins of European politics, social conservatives are learning to fight back. posted on July 28, 2014, at 4:36 p.m. -J. Lester Feder

And look at this great idea for a picture:

Hungary’s ultranationalist Jobbik Party, for example, printed posters featuring a blond woman with a Hungarian flag standing opposite drag Eurovision champion Conchita Wurst with an EU flag, along with the caption: “You Choose!”

- click on link to the article to see the picture.

Another nice observation in the Linker article comments – see two previous posts.

is anyone else seeing a shift in the language from ‘liberal’ to ‘progressive’? and what if it’s not just a shift in language, but also in political identity? that could eliminate the ‘hypocrisy’ of the left’s intolerance of the intolerant.

  • ===========================================
     My reply:

    Nicely pointed out. Yes, I’ve noticed. Their other ridiculous label “the reality based community” never really caught on much – maybe it was too long. And conservatives have nicely succeeded in making “liberal” have an association to a morally degenerate, irresponsible person, so I guess liberals must move on to new labels.

    Like “evolved” or the “right side of history” refrain – sounds like a Mao-like kind of propaganda phrase – but in an obscenely affluent capitalistic consumerist perverted context. It is a bizarre mixture. What human beings become when they become affluent and lose all send of morality: junk of people.

    As liberals prove, in an echo chamber, everything is possible. The Nazis also always underscored how much progress they were bringing to society.

So I went down to the “Internet saloon” to have a little “saloon” type exchange today in the comments to this article from Damon Linker on why he is now speaking in defense of religious liberty.

And in response to:

Wait… so aren’t you being intolerant of the intolerance that liberals are displaying towards the intolerance of conservatives?

I came up with:

Intolerance against the intolerable is tolerance, that is, tolerance of our tolerance which is not intolerance because it’s just tolerance of our most evolved liberal selves or something

Just having fun :-D

Which leads us to the question, as a result of the culture wars, can anyone use the word “tolerance” with its correct meaning, or has it now been forever disfigured by liberals? Like the rainbow also – marred and tainted by this recent association to homosexuality. It used to be such a pretty symbol. Now it’s just a tool of the ugliest of propagandas, used to cover up a nasty sexual sewer.

 

How social conservatives became a minority in need of protection
During the Bush era, the religious right was ascendant and scarily intolerant. Now the same can be said of the secular left.
By Damon Linker | July 25, 2014

================

I came across the above article because Rod Dreher (TAC) was wailing about something related on his blog.

Damon Linker writes:

“Thirteen years ago, I was a committed social conservative, recently hired as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine devoted to bringing traditionalist religion into American public life for the purpose of overthrowing the liberal secularism that had been growing in power and influence since the 1960s.”

I don’t know what FT was like it then, but just a few years ago, FT was and continues to be a profoundly morally corrupt publication, who is sturdily pushing for the normalization of homosexuality – and has that as a priority – while constantly censoring voices that sustain a real traditionalist – and healthy – view of sexuality (social conservatism).

After I got banned at FT for expressing traditionalist views, I created a blog to log a few of the censored comments (“Censored at First Things“) – which then turned into a repository of my continuously censored comments all around the Net, including on many so-called traditional religious blogs and sites.

Linker continues delineating his “evolution”:

Though I was skeptical about some aspects of the magazine’s agenda, I was broadly sympathetic with its goals. At least until I saw them guiding White House policy. I opposed the Iraq War before it started and found particularly outrageous the theologically tinged arguments the magazine published in support of it. I dissented from the sexism that pervaded the magazine’s offices and permeated its pages. I changed my mind on same-sex marriage, eventually becoming persuaded by Andrew Sullivan’s conservative case for allowing gay couples to marry — and feeling disgust at the Bush administration’s support for a constitutional amendment banning such arrangements.

FT is currently ruled by an ugly gay mafia, and given that the author was “persuaded” to adhere to the repugnant Andrew Sullivan, and his nasty homosexuality agenda, no surprise he was at FT – surely he was never much of a social conservative to begin with.

He’s the kind of “conservative” that hears a perverted way of thinking about sexuality and is immediately “persuaded” of its “truth”!

You have to laugh at these people calling themselves social conservatives…

Hasn’t anyone else noticed this? These “conservatives” who become so easily persuaded when they hear liberals pushing their homosexuality agenda, their porn agenda, their prostitution, adultery, hook-up agendas…

Doesn’t anyone realize there weren’t any socially conservative or religious fundamentals there to begin with?

No one that has a good grasp on healthy and wholesome frameworks for sexuality and relationships can be persuaded by the trash that the Sullivans of the world put forth. How can anyone who has a decent mind be “persuaded” by arguments produced by a perverted and dysfunctional homosexual like Sullivan?

Linker and others like him weren’t persuaded. They never had a grasp on what healthy and wholesome is in terms of sexuality. It’s only when you have a combination of shaky, corrupted, and ignorant views and misunderstandings of sexuality in addition to not having much of a clue of the real problems related to homosexuality in the world that you can jump on the homosexuality agenda bandwagon.

Linker was only persuaded in the sense of being duped. And maybe he was enthusiastically duped, maybe he was all to eager to be duped, obviously not for the best reasons. Quite a possibility there too.

The Kremlin’s Favorite Anti-Gay Hate Group is Coming to Utah

The very lame Jay Michaelson over at the Daily Beast – the sad liberal site pushing homosexuality as normal – has a recent article where he does his best to demonize healthy and wholesome social conservatives – including an image of a conservative family photoshopped as  “devils” – I kid you not.

The target of his hateful rage this time is various Russians, like the oligarch Konstantin Malofeev,
who have prominently worked to foster healthy families and a wholesome conservative sexuality ideology.

Why this now? Because there is a conservative conference on the agenda: “the World Congress of Families, an umbrella group of forty-odd ‘traditional values’ organizations, announced earlier this month that their 2015 conference will be held in Salt Lake City, thanks to the financial patronage of the Sutherland Institute, a far-right think tank based there. Among the attendees: some of the leaders behind the Hobby Lobby battle in the United States and Russia’s anti-gay laws.”

WCF was going to hold their 2014 conference in Moscow, but because of the Ukranian crisis, changed plans. Then it was rescheduled for Salt Lake City, “representatives of the Human Rights Campaign insisted that “the values of the people of Salt Lake City are ones that promote inclusivity,” and noted that WCF has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. ” In other words, liberal smearing and slander went into full gear.

“Paul Mero, President of the Sutherland Institute and former vice president of the WCF’s parent organization, The Howard Center (also labeled a hate group by the SPLC), fired back in an op-ed that it was “false and dangerous” to call either organization a hate group.”

Jay lists his hate targets:

There’s Komov, who simultaneously represents WCF, FamilyPolicy.Ru, and the St. Basil Foundation. And then there’s Komov’s deputy, Pavel Parfentiev, who compared the ban on LGBT “propaganda” to a ban on toxic chemicals in baby food.  Komov and Parfentiev have played host to American right-wingers including Lively, the Holocaust Denier turned anti-gay crusader famous for his Uganda exploits; Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Allan Carlson, the founder of WCF itself. There are also the funders.: the oligarch Malofeef, who made his money in private equity and now spends his spare time running the St. Basil the Great Foundation and hosting secret meetings to combat the “satanic gay lobby” in Europe – and Vladimir Yakunin, a major funder of WCF projects and the founder of two far-right Russian foundations, as well as a notorious America-basher (a small disagreement set aside by WCF’s leadership). And I wouldn’t want to forget the legislator Mizulina, … WCF and its Russian counterparts are funded by right-wing heavy hitters, including oil executive Jerry Fullinwider, a member of the Koch brothers’ inner circle; the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of the leading funders of the Heritage Foundation, climate-denying Heartland Institute, and the brain trust behind the Hobby Lobby case; and its parent institution, the Howard Center. And its ‘partner organizations’ include Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Americans United For Life.

=========================

We, as conservatives, need to join forces and work together all around the world. Thanks to Jay for informing us about some of these people. These are the people we must support and with whom we must work together.

Lastly, the great promoters of homosexual violence, degeneration, disease spreading, irresponsibility, and lying – those homosexual activists like GLAAD, the APA, HRC, etc. and their shoddy supporters wasted no time to hurl their smear declarations to the press:

“We’re looking at a number of options to expose the World Congress of Families and their vicious brand of anti-LGBT bigotry in the months ahead,” Jason Rahlan, HRC’s Global Press Secretary, told the Daily Beast.  “This is not a group of people who simply hold deeply misguided personal opinions: they are having a profound impact on the lives of LGBT people all around the world.” “

What the WCF needs to do is to expose the vicious brand of anti-conservative bigotry from these garbage of LGBT people.

Stop the hate against decent, healthy, social conservatives. Denounce it, expose it, attack it. Expose how violent, corrupt, and dishonest liberals pushing a homosexuality agenda are.

 

Saw some good comments at Patterico’s blog this week (and one from a TAC/Dreher thread). Some of the comments are from “retire05“, who’s new to me at least. He raises several points that I usually raise, but few other people do too. Nice. If you follow my blogs, you know that I have been banned on both these blogs. My crime was to create awareness that must never happen on such blogs.


Josh McGee
says:

“We can disagree on the answers, but can we at least approach the questions without presuming the other is acting in bad faith?”

Unfortunately for you and others (like myself), that is not the way Progressivism works. The nature of Progressivism is to close debate at the earliest feasible opportunity. This is done, mostly, by convincing a large number of people that everyone who did or still does hold the older view is narrow, stupid, and/or evil (bigoted, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.). There could have been no good reasons for any other model than the one being proposed today, so debate is unnecessary. Never mind if aspects of prior civilizations may have towered above our own.

We have been transitioning to that stage for the last year or two on LGBT issues, with the heat increasing significantly in recent months.

One of the most idiotic things conservatives do is work to negotiate with Progressives, given those terms. This is true whether dealing with LGBT issues, feminism, economic policy, or any other thing. The reason is that every time a conservative compromises or concedes on one issue, a new demand is made that will only weaken him further. Therefore, nothing is ever conserved. The conservative position, rather than moving forward, only dies a long, slow death. It can only definite itself in opposition to today’s Progressive.

Progressivism is incapable of negotiating in good faith, towards some sort of equilibrium possibly acceptable to both sides because it doesn’t operate in that way. Every ‘achievement’ only unleashes the next ‘issue’ of ‘our time’. There is no objective end they are aiming for, other than, perhaps, power. Calls for ‘justice’ are merely the sugary topping to make today’s demand (whatever it happens to be) go down a little more smoothly. There is no debate nor compromise that will satisfy their thirst. There is no state-of-affairs where contentment could be found.

And, lastly, its victories are, in truth, standing on such shaky foundations that its position of power is best maintained via coercive regulation of speech***. Those few who perpetually continue to truly resist Progressivism’s victories must be declared guilty of hate-speech and culturally silenced or mocked or otherwise vilified and ostracized from ‘polite’ society.

***It is not surprising to find that the highest concentration of Progressives, the university, also has some of the most stifling views towards speech. Where Progressivism is most rampant, free (controversial) speech will be most threatened.

[Alessandra adds: this explains why I get banned at so many blogs, obviously the liberals ones, but especially the liberal conservative kind or the conservative hiding a gay mafia kind]

=========================

http://patterico.com/2014/07/02/why-does-it-matter-whether-judges-twist-the-constitution-to-uphold-gay-marriage/#comments

We’re past a tipping point; the State has self-awareness, now, and exists only to feed itself. Our fault is in failing to see that we have nothing left to rely on but each other, in whatever internally organized communities we can muster for self-defense – be that in militias or terrorist cells or town hall meetings or book clubs or blogs or simple, loyal family units. But it’s a mistake to think that the Constitution was ever anything but a beautiful mask placed over the face of Power, which is the only thing that has ever or will ever decide what can or cannot happen in human life.

==========================

There are those who consider homosexuality a normal human condition, few bother to research the etymology of the modern day movement for same sex marriage. But the beginnings are important, if you want to understand what is happening today.

The term “homosexual” was never used until the late 1800′s in Germany. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a sexologist and homosexual himself, first wrote about same sex activities. His purpose was to normalize it and to force the elimination of laws that made homosexuality illegal. Four years later, another German, Karoly Maria Kertbeny, coined the phrase “homosexuality” in letters to Ulrichs. Yet, homosexuality was still considered a clinical disorder, with the best hope being the elimination of judicial prosecution for those activies.

Add to that the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, who, a devotee of Karl Marx who had his finger on the pulse of movements in Germany, believed that Marxism could be achieved through non-violent means by changing the culture. Part of those changes included the destruction of the family unit and the normalization of abnormal sexual behavior. Gramsci concluded this could be achieved by first destroying the Church, secondly destroying the family unit, third destroying any belief in morals. Once this was achieved, human nation being what it is and humans wanting something to believe in, would turn to the government for all their needs. Gramsci also believed that children would have to be indoctrinated (in public school settings) before the age of 12 because after the age of 12, children were forming their own opinions and would not totally accept Marxism.

Jump to the days of Harvey Milk and the Gay Liberation Front. Perhaps Mr. Happyfeet can tell us when, ever in the history of medical progress, a mental disorder ceased to be a mental disorder simply because some said it no longer existed. Because that is exactly what happened when psychiatrists from the APA were threatened, intimidated, and had death threats lobbed at them from the California Gay Liberation Front. The Gay Liberation Movement adopted the tactics of Marx, knowing that fear (of retaliation) would prove to be greater than a person’s personal, or even professional, opinions. Hence, the threats against the psychiatrists during their San Francisco convention.

But the claim back then was simply that homosexuals merely wanted the rights of “privacy” and used Lawrence v. Texas to push that goal (the truth be known, Lawrence was the result of a gay lovers spat). Once that was achieved, the movement then turned to same sex marriage, although early homosexual activists have subsequently admitted that same sex marriage was never the goal. The goal is to be declared a “privileged” group. Tolerance is not what this is all about. It is about forced acceptance. By any means possible.

One other thing: Mr. Happyfeet links to a Wikipedia article about marriage licenses. It leaves a lot to be desired. Marriage licenses were first granted in the colonies for one reason; the Common Law protection of a child’s right to inheritance as we became a propertied society. It was to avoid litigation when a man had more than one family. I suggest Mr. Happyfeet find a more reliable source than Wikipedia.

retire05 (163c58) 7/2/2014 @ 1:48 pm Leviticus (1aca67) —

==========================

#54, Mr. Happyfeet, check your own source which says:

During the early 20th century, the number of women diagnosed with female hysteria declined sharply. Many reasons have been attributed to this decline. Many medical authors claim that the decline was due to laypeople gaining a greater understanding of the psychology behind conversion disorders such as hysteria.[6]

It was a gradual reduction in diagnosis. Not just removed, over night, from the DSM as homosexuality was. If doctors get together and claim that TB is no longer a disease, does that make it true if there was no cure found to eradicate TB? Because that is exactly what happened in the DSM.

retire05 (163c58) 7/2/2014 @ 2:33 pm

========================
Libbtarrds like cheap suited lawyers are only interested in THEMSELVES.

My greatest problem with most liberals is they believe their biases imbue them with great compassion, generosity, tolerance and sophistication. If they at least sensed — or were honest enough to admit — their liberalism was simply predicated on cheap emotions,

Mark (cb6333) 7/4/2014 @ 8:04 am

========================

Dr. samuel johnson said it best when boswell asked him what he thought about the american revolution going on at the time. I observe those who scream the loudest about freedom and liberty are the slave holding southerners!

vota (411118) 7/5/2014 @ 12:40 pm

Isn’t it funny when you are walking down the street or just sitting at home, doing nothing special, and a thought that you had come across a long time ago, or even repeatedly at different points in your life, but that you didn’t think too much about simply hits you like lightening and creates a searing awareness?

Well, a few days ago I had just one such experience. I was reading an article about bitcoin and this image materialized with such force in my thinking. Not only bitcoin money but most of our money today is nothing but little bits, little electronic signals that someone has fed into a big machine. It can light up on your screen and this glitzy machine can say that you have X amount of money, but in the end, all that is is a little light signal, completely immaterial. Should someone turn the machine off, poof! There goes all your “money.” And it’s not that this wasn’t just as true for currency bills, because as it often happened at certain chaotic times in history, bundles of what were valuable bills turned into worthless pieces of paper from one day to the next.

This is the thought that really struck home to me: money can only function on the basis of a profound convention between all involved. Should one party say “All you have is a bunch of little papers or electronic signals,” the other party is really left with nothing.

I remember watching a Galbraith documentary on money eons ago, sitting in our living room where he discussed the history of money. And I remember finding it quite interesting. But then it just subsided among so many others things to think about. I can’t remember today what he said then although I am pretty sure he did talk about how money came into existence, first bartering, then finding a common substitute that symbolized bartered goods. And I can still see the image in my mind of us sitting around the living room watching this most interesting documentary on the history of money (having more than one part?).

And now, so many moons later, this thought about the frailty of the concept of money and the whole system just struck me with such force. It’s all based on a very intriguing way to establish a convention that many people don’t think about at all or give very little thought.

 

Snowden

Just watched NBC’s Brian Williams’s interview with Snowden. Oh how this is dragging on and on. I seriously underestimated how long it would take for anything to come to light. Greenwald is promising some new revelations in the next three months or so. Let us forecast that into another year of waiting. Anyways, it makes for a great circus to see government officials who are defending a surveillance and undemocratic state try to smear Snowden in every way they desperately set their minds to. It’s sad that no mass media outlet has the courage to ask tough questions when interviewing Kerry, Clapper, et al. Such puppets. And then they point fingers to their equivalent puppets in Russia. Seriously, you would think the world could produce more intelligence than this.

DSK and “Welcome to New York”

I’ve been delighted every time I look up the news and see one more article on the new DSK (Dominique Straus Kahn) film “Welcome to New York,” detailing how grotesque and putrid he is. Well, allegedly the film is not about him, that’s the beauty of it. And it will be interesting to see if DSK can sue the filmmaker about it, given that French defamation laws have as a primary objective to protect any and all corrupt French rats from exposure. How nice if he failed and it just brought more publicity to the film and to DSK and his wife’s respective sordid minds. Even more delightful is that the filmmaker had the savviness to portray DSK’s wife as fully supportive and collusive with her criminal husband. My thoughts exactly. I was also immensely amused about all the clamoring from the French press about what a horrible film this is. Yes, it may be – I haven’t watched it because I read it was sleazy soft porn half of the time – but it shows what a horrible man their French president-to-be was and is. And that is what irks the French the most: exposure of their rotten selves. So they all rally behind the criticisms that this isn’t great movie-making. It’s great morality making but most French with a media voice are too corrupt to appreciate the fact.

The other thing that took me completely by surprise is Depardieu’s participation in all of this. First, given that I don’t follow any French movie making topics, I had no idea such a movie was in production. Much less with Depardieu. Second, I don’t know much about Depardieu, but I would have never imagined he would attack a sex criminal. First, because most of French movie/television people (and their counterparts elsewhere, Hoolywood, heh!) is composed of a bunch of sexually perverted and corrupt individuals. Second, because I remember being disgusted by reading an article on Depardieu discussing the alleged fact that Depardieu either took part or went along to passively witness a gang rape in his youth days. To see a French person, and not only that, but a major movie actor, who was involved in a rape, attack Dominique Straus Kahn for being sordid was very surprising. The French are generally so tremendously corrupt in their attitudes and behaviors about sex – and they are smug about it. They all go along with the game and get their attitudes reinforced by their society – they are usually so disgusting.

Nevertheless, it was reported Depardieu did the movie because he specifically dislikes Straus Kahn. Why, one wonders? And the Ferrara guy, that’s surprising too. I also don’t know anything about him, but I quickly read an interview and he speaks with such a potty mouth. Potty-mouth Holywood director makes film attacking French sex criminal? Everything is so surprising about the context of this film.

By, the way, I loved the poster for the movie, the idea for the photograph and its result, and the text “Do you know who I am?”

Elliot Rodger

I was surprised and dismayed with the news and blog coverage of the California killing spree by Elliot Rodger. Again, loads of demonization of the young man. But no one that I saw bothered to ask what was done to this boy to make him develop such deep and grave psychological and emotional problems. Children that are treated well don’t develop such problems. My question: was Elliot emotionally (and otherwise) abused by his parents or others around him? What happened all along his history?

How sad that no one is capable of asking these simple but fundamental questions.

Distant observer | May 24 5:57pm | Permalink

Sad that we are now in a situation where there is no side to cheer for, for people with any principles in the West.

The ‘other side’ are amoral semi-dictatorships – and ‘our’ side are now fake democracies, actually run by corporate oligopolies, with democratic and moral considerations thrown aside in the pursuit of more money, and power – to be achieved by any means.

=========================

This.

 

On top of it, “our side” is now working constantly to make society into a  sexual sewer, and shove this paradigm down everyone’s throats – a truly violent sexual pigsty, where decent people are increasingly harassed and persecuted.

 

(p.s. as you may have noticed, I have been too busy to blog/interact on the Internet)

Today was a horrible day, because it was a lost day. Oh, Cravitz! It wasn’t all lost, but it was pretty much a lost day. My fault. Although there were a few non-lost things, like some great comments that I read on the Net.

1) Pornography

First on the lie that porn is cathartic regarding sexual violence. I’ve argued the same as what is stated below, but since I don’t see a lot of people saying it very often, it was nice to see it.

As to the idea that viewing porn helps prevent violent rape–if this logic were true, then it would be imperative for us to make all sorts of cathartic video games available, to replace actual crime and violence with simulated. We could end violence against GLBT with simulated beatings and killings, and have similar programs simulating the abuse and murder of children and the elderly. If there really is an exhaustible zero-sum equation of violence and wickedness in humans, it would be very important for everyone to spend a certain amount of time pretending they’re Hitler, so as to assure that no one will be.

It’s a ridiculous excuse.

2) Homosexuality

Second, my reply to a liberal that never got published, debating the normalization of homosexuality, because the liberal’s comment was deleted by the moderator (although I did not find it offensive, I imagine the moderator deleted it because it was just one load of liberal homosexuality propaganda):

Sorry, but there are many psychologists who understand how deformed and dysfunctional homosexuality is, and then there are the ignorant ones who don’t. NARTH is a good site to read research of people who actually investigate the causes of homosexuality. Every time psychologists have investigated causes, they have found a long list of problems. Liberals just don’t want to deal with many problems related to sexual psychology.
While homosexuality is not an illness, most destructive sexual ideologies are not “illnesses” either. A person who engages in date rape is not “mentally ill” by psychiatric standards. Neither is someone who produces porn, who exploits prostitutes, or who transmits deadly STDs to dozens of people. Not even pedophilia is thought of as an illness by the junk of liberal psychologists.

Regarding people not choosing to have a homosexual problem, perhaps you have not considered that your thoughts and your behaviors are your choice, or at least you are responsible for them. And homosexuality certainly includes plenty of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. All chosen.

And I also think your wrong about people not choosing things that would have bad consequences. If that were true, we wouldn’t have any criminal behavior in the world, because who would choose to a) do a crime, b) be punished? Yet, people choose to do harm and violence constantly. They also choose to pursue all kinds of perverted thoughts and feelings their deformed minds produce.

No one is born with a homosexual problem, and if homosexuals resolved their problems, they would live out their lives like the heterosexuals they were born.

There has been a lot more investigation in the death of Matthew Sheppard than you’ve read. A journalist has written an entire book showing that it was a drug deal gone bad, and that there is reason to suspect his killer was bisexual as well. I don’t know about this mother you mention, but clearly she is a monster. But if you want to talk about monsters, how about Frank Lombard, a homosexual pedophile who adopted two babies to specifically rape them every night? It was people with your ideas that gave him those kids to torture. 15%-50% of adult LGBs have been involved in interpersonal violence. 80% of the sexually abusing priests investigated in the Catholic Church scandal were homosexuals. Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis. And homosexuals just love to sexually degrade people in pornography.

It seems to me you have chosen to ignore many, if not all, the problems that exist with LGBTs.

================

3) Power and morality

Intimidation, persuasion, bullying, shaming, ostracism, etc. is what decides who has a place at the table since morality is a matter of belief not fact. Moral debates are only power games. The earth is round and 2 + 2 = 4, those are facts.”

A lot of a person’s sense of good and evil ultimately depends on their feelings. For many people, morality  is as objectively true as your favorite flavor of ice cream. Yet, given that harm is not an abstract concept only, it exists in reality, all depends on how accurate or innacurate one’s perception of harm is, which will also determine one’s morality. Add self-interests and other interests, tons of social conditioning, and there is little room left for science, of all things. Liberals, who claim to base their views on science, have actually read very little science, understand very little science, and base most of their morality on the very biased, distorted, and infinitely emotional elements above. If only they had any self-awareness.

4) Liberals and sheep herding

Liberals are not smarter. They’re just school yard bullies who like to hurl insults towards any group they disagree with. It’s like having a scientific debate, and responding by saying “you’re gay”. Really? I basically proved my point, and that’s you’re response? Except, the lib simply declares themselves correct by virtue.

Of course, when a lib declares their theories to be set in stone facts, other libs will repeat these so called facts. When the public hears the same thing over and over again, they will assume it to be solidified fact. That’s how it goes in liberal science. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, or something in between. It’s all about how to condition the public to accept the agenda. In most cases, it’s as easy as blasting the public with these “facts”, until there’s no alternative but to accept them for face value.

Libs have invested more time and energy in herding the sheeple into their enclosures. Conservatives tend to favor freedom of choice… A pattern of thinking that libs are well on their way toward eradicating.”

While I disagree that conservatives haven’t done an equal amount of making people into sheep, I certainly agree with the description of what liberals do, and one can never point out enough how disingenuous they are about acknowledging exactly what they are doing.

5) Those odious moderates

Know who I despise most of all? So-called “moderates.” They are mealy-mouthed, flaccid, totally lacking in convictions or principles. They go along to get along, dissembling and equivocating shamelessly.

Hear, hear. Nothing as obnoxious as a “moderate” who is nothing but a spineless, basically clueless, indifferent individual who thinks he is superior because they don’t have a more definite position on an issue.

6) Falling for the liberal lie that homosexuality is normal

I also think some progress has been made in that more people are starting to reject the main tactic of the left of demonizing and maligning anyone who doesn’t normalize homosexuality. They were manipulating conservatives by making them feel guilty for things they were not guilty of.

At its core, liberals want to shove homosexuality as normal down society’s throat, and they used the line that you were a bad person if you believed in a wholesome and healthy view of sexuality that excludes homosexual perversion (along with porn, promiscuity, etc). Many people fell for the normalization of homosexuality.

It will be up to better informed conservatives to dismantle the lie.

7) de Tocqueville – Democracy, power, and mediocrity

Alexander de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America

Freedom cannot possibly be taken as the distinctive characteristic of democracies.

Men are much alike, and they are annoyed, as it were, by any deviation from that likeness; far from seeking to preserve their own distinguishing singularities, they endeavor to shake them off in order to identify themselves with the general mass of the people, which is the sole representative of right and of might in their eyes. However the powers of a democratic society are organized and weighted, it will always be very difficult for a man to believe what the mass of people reject, or to profess what they condemn.The more social conditions become equal and the less power individuals possess, the more easily men drift with the crowd and find it difficult to stand alone in an opinion abandoned by the rest.

What concerns me in our democratic republics is not that mediocrity will become commonplace, but that it may be enforced.

8) Orwellian liberalism

tomfinn says: April 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Yeah, “diversity” and “tolerance” have now become a code-words for homogeneity and conformity.

Many years ago I occasionally watched a late-night cartoon on the TV – “Bromwell High.” It was British, extremely cynical, and quite brutal.

There was one episode about “Tolerance.” (You can find it on YouTube.) The kids in the high-school were doing presentations about diversity. One girl made a presentation called “Into the melting pot.” So all these multi-culti students started coming onto the stage, and saying “I am so-and-so, and I am from so-and-so. I like Tupac. My favorite food is KFC. I like text-messaging.” At some point the presenter’s crazy friend shouts: “This ain’t diverse! They is all the same!”

So that’s what we have going on with our “progressive” friends. Your skin can be of any color, and you can have sex with whatever persons and objects you want (presumably including sisters, sheep, tomatoes, etc), as long as: you hate Christianity and especially the Catholic Church, you believe in Global Warming, you think homosexuality is just dandy even if you would rather drink mercury than have gay sex, you believe Russia & China are bad without knowing anything of their cultures or history, you want to save the silly paupers of third world nations from themselves and their prejudices, you like Whole Foods, you are a bourgeois, you believe in Feminism, you believe in Darwinism, you believe in Behaviorism, you believe there are no such things as right or wrong, you believe all of the beliefs listed above are right, you believe there is no ultimate justice, you believe women and gays have been treated unjustly, you believe all cultures are equal, you believe (for example) that the female “circumcision” cultural practices in certain places are barbaric, you hate capitalism and corporatism, you love Starbucks & Apple, you believe bombing the subjects of “evil” dictators (e.g. Obama & Libya) into “democracy” is a good idea, you think Bush’s ridiculous wars were a bad idea, etc etc.

Disbelief in any of the dogmas listed above brands you as a heretic, and, if uncovered, may lead to excommunication. As we saw with the case of Mr. Eich.

=============

I loved his whole compendium of profoundly inconsistent liberal beliefs – which they believe in a rabid way while always thinking they are very consistent.

Update Monday April 14

Mozilla is proving that it is dedicated to pluralism and tolerance by excluding people with different views.
Or something.
Likewise, Brandeis is proving its institutional commitment to women’s rights by excluding a woman from publicly speaking about women being mistreated at the hands of the Religion of Peace.
Keep in mind, these are the same people who think we have to spend more money in order to get out of debt, as well as that global warming causes more cold weather.

My calendar says “2014,” but I’m pretty certain it is 1984.

Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/13/2014 @ 10:38 am

I think it’s simpler than that [referring to OP]. The cultural “defect” is cowardice.

Comment by melanerpes (6d31ac) — 4/13/2014 @ 4:55 pm

Plust self-interest and thuggishness. This is exactly what it is.

==============
Richao says: April 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Bobby says:

These complaints seem odd coming from social conservatives. I taught for one year at an evangelical Christian college as I was wrapping up my dissertation and getting ready to go to law school. Evangelical colleges are some of the most intellectually oppressive and stifling places imaginable. So, if you’re going to lambast Harvard, then take a look at places like Bob Jones, Wheaton, and Liberty.

I always find this argument – and the parallel tu quoque arguments elsewhere (e.g., “sure, maybe the Times is biased, but Fox News!”) curious: Pointing out that Harvard or the Times behave exactly like these caricatures of universities and journalistic organizations is supposed to be a defense of the former? Um, okay, I guess. I mean, I thought the whole point of taking a condescending attitude toward these institutions on the right was to mark one’s own institutions out as, well, being different in kind. But Bobby – and countless others – are telling me that his beef is not with fundamentalism as such: He’s totally fine with the fundamentalism on offer at Harvard. It’s that declassé Christian fundamentalism that he doesn’t like

Listen: I can’t speak to Wheaton and Liberty, but I attended – and received my BA from – Bob Jones. When I left fundamentalism a couple years later and decided to pursue an MA in history, the last thing I expected was to find myself, at an expensive, private university in the northeast, in another stultifying variation on the fundamentalism I had left behind. I took great pleasure in pointing out to classmates the eerie parallels with campus politics at Bob Jones. Unlike Bobby, my classmates and professors were not quite so enthusiastic about openly acknowledging those parallels.

Not all secular institutions are like this: I had the pleasure of attending law school at an institution where real debate on any issue, from any perspective one could defend, was encouraged. But Bobby’s right: Most academics – heck, most humans – are entirely happy to dwell in a narrowly comfortable – I would say constrained – world. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t see this as a virtue.

================

Frank Stain says: April 13, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Rod, I think Jerry’s post on this thread is worth thinking about. He points out where you and Douthat are both getting it wrong. The basic point is this: ‘diversity’ does not just mean considerable or even maximum variety and difference among expressed ideas. The notion of diversity itself has moral substance . That moral substance is located in its claim that, whatever the understanding of the good life individuals happen to hold, they must respect everybody else’s right to form and pursue their own good (providing they also return this respect).
In so far as social conservatives endorse a vision of the good that relegates some classes of people to second-class status, and excludes them from the benefits of full citizenship, their understanding of the good is incompatible with diversity.

[Alessandra asks: isn't this exactly what most liberals (and conservatives) do to illegal aliens? But, but... the law says Inspector Javert.]

There is no rational expectation that a society has to tolerate views that are seeking to undermine the moral conditions of diversity.
Hierarchies of race and sex simply undermine the conditions of mutual respect and fundamental human equality that make a diverse society possible.

[Alessandra points out: so do notions that some people have a right to be a citizen and others don't - the closest ideology we have to the rational of slavery, and with the former being completely enforced today, with the enthusiastic approval of the multitudes who consider themselves far different (in the sense of morally superior) than slavery partisans. The lying does get toxic.]

This is not a problem with ‘diversity’; it simply follows from what the moral content of diversity actually means.

====================

Elijah says:

Jerry, there are so many straw men in your post that I’m afraid of a wildfire.

[Alessandra: LOL - I'll have to remember this one]

===================

The Mighty Favog says:

If it isn’t conducive to pie-charting, it ain’t “diversity.”

Now, if the shallow sons of sapsuckers running newsrooms today were TRULY committed to diversity, as opposed to “diversity,” you would see regular, in-depth coverage of America’s inner cities apart from when the inhabitants thereof show up on the police blotter.

But people who might be vitally interested in that don’t buy the newspaper, now, do they? Very un-SWPL. In a society that holds there is no god but mammon, everybody’s a whore.

Especially journalists.

=================

zic says:

Ah yes, so diversity that does not embrace bigotry is not diverse.

Go bigots!

[Which only goes to prove that some of the best people in the world are "bigoted" and "homophobic" - without a doubt. Join our club!]

================

Glaivester says: April 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm

*I am sure that there are lots of very nice, very sincere individual leftists. They are not the ones setting the agenda.
[Alessandra says: This.]
================
Which leads me to my last issue: do the liberals Rod’s been writing about want to change people’s hearts, or do they just want the satisfaction of condemnation? Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to get to the Promised Land together. The liberal bigots we’ve been discussing have decided they’ve reached the Promised Land, and they want to punish everyone they think hasn’t gotten there yet. Of course, the urge to declare “I Know The Truth” exists in all of us – only some philosophies have built-in safeguards to keep us humble and tolerant, which I don’t think modern liberalism currently has.
[This is a very nice point. I'm not sure however, of which other philosophy has worked out that problem in practice. Most fail, even if you can always find particular individuals who succeed, almost regardless of the philosophy. The beauty of the human spirit lies exactly in that.]
=================
Hector_St_Clare says:

Re: That moral substance is located in its claim that, whatever the understanding of the good life individuals happen to hold, they must respect everybody else’s right to form and pursue their own good (providing they also return this respect).

The reason this is so much intellectual fluff and nonsense, is because certain conceptions of the good life- indeed, the *vast majority* of conceptions of the good life, both ancient and modern, are essentially collective. They involve *society as a whole* pursuing certain goods, and individuals pursuing certain goods in concert with another. If one is a Marxist, for example, then one’s conception of the good life involves people owning the means of production in common, and contributing according to their ability, receiving according to their needs. If one is a traditionalist Catholic, then the conception of the good life is going to involve society as a whole protecting life from conception to natural death. If one is a Muslim, the conception of the good life is going to place a great importance on sexual purity not just as an individual virtue but as a social one. An ethnic nationalist is going to have still another vision of the good life, an environmentalist another, an anarchosocialist yet another, a monarchist still another….These are all visions that involve the wholesale transformation of society as a whole. To say to people “you can be a Catholic or a Marxist in your private life, but you must respect other people’s right to have recreational abortions/amass vast personal fortunes in theirs” is nonsensical. This is why liberalism fundamentally imposes a sterile sameness on the world, because it mortally attenuates everyone’s vision of the good life even while claiming to respect them.

You need to read Orlando Patterson on what he calls ‘sovereignal freedom’, and why it’s the oldest and arguably most important kind historically. Personal freedom, without the freedom to try to build the society we want to live in and impose that will on others, is not worth a whole lot, because most conceptions of the good life are inherently collective and social (as befits the fact we are a social animal).

=====================

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers