It is intriguing how a liberal and conservative can look at the same events, facts, realities, experiences, etc. and arrive at diametric conclusions. To the modern liberal,
“The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy [1] because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of
Chesterton wrote this almost one hundred years ago. It is amazing how perceptible the illogical and ignorant positions of the liberal are. Like I said, libs, please keep preachin’ your treasonous doctrines, PLEASE!!! For truth will always triumphant over treason…..
6 comments:
So why can’t liberals make up their mind?
I think a lot of them are genuinely confused as to what exactly they should grasp as truth and thus be able to espouse their views in relation to a reasonable foundation for those views. By assuming, as a lot of people do, that ‘truth’ is found within the experiences of self or, more radically, that there is no truth to be found either on the surface of things observable and beneath that curtain into the unseen, they find it difficult to defend anything they say. (Maybe because they feel they don’t need a defense.) It is more valuable, I believe, to have sympathy for these people than to condemn them. To understand why liberals believe the way they do can be an effective way of reaching them. It does indeed frustrate me to see them almost take joy in their lack of knowledge but it also brings my heart pain.
With the fear of sounding as though I am above them because I do believe in a single, profound Truth and explanation for all things, I add that I have only just begun to scratch the surface of such things. A little bit of skepticism is necessary in the pursuit of all knowledge, for no human is above coloring things the way they see fit, but radically casting off all knowledge claiming no possibility of objective truth, they can except anything as having subjective merit. You then come across the things Chesterton spoke of. Liberals, we will hear your reasons if you ever come up with them, so ladies and gentlemen, justify your claim.
“According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will.” -- Bill O'Reilly
Hey Jason,
Amazing! I actually logged in on my forst try. This is great. I have not read any of the recent posts but I will and I will respond as soon as possible. Thanks for the interesting talking points. I will be in touch.
Blessings,
Graham
Sorry, FIRST try
Hey, I'm just glad your blogging GWP....
Senor Joshua, I believe that BlogMasterT has thrown down a gauntlet to which you shied away from…. As I always say, and have yet to receive an answer: What are your ontological and epistemological foundations? On what authority do you base your arguments?
Post a Comment