Dwyer: “LIBERAL” NONSENSE
After I wrote my column “Liberal non-elimination” three weeks ago, I was left with a distinctive feeling that I left the core of the subject of “Liberalism” unaddressed. This short analysis is intended as a make up for this lack of thoroughness.
There are so many absurdities that the “Liberals” commit.
On one hand, they give lip service to Darwin and natural evolution (footnote: Whether Darwin’s evolution theory is correct or not does not affect the validity of the argument presented here), but on the other hand they insist on “intelligently” re-engineering the human nature, by removing what they call “racism” and “greed” from it, and redoing the most complicated system that nature has created on Earth: the Western society.
Just to contradict themselves, these ostensible Darwin’s believers do whatever they can to stop the evolution of human species in track by removing any form of meaningful evolutionary pressure and elimination (for instance, they staunchly object elimination of criminals) from society and economy, or by resorting to helping the less fit to reproductively outcompete the most fit and subsidizing the less successful enterprises while heavily taxing the most successful ones, which just reverses the evolutionary progress.. And then they call these attempts to send us backward to where we came from a “progress”.
To make it even more absurd, they accuse those who assume consequently Darwinian point of view (Frank Salter, “On Genetic Interests”
Transaction Publishers, 2007) of the so-called “naturalistic fallacy” (asserting that things ought to be the way they actually are), a charge that in itself is deceitful and fallacious, taking into account that most of the evil has been done under auspices of ideologistic fallacy (asserting that things are the way the “Liberals” wish they were) and not naturalistic fallacy which is by and large just a “Liberal” hoax.
Now, although they are very harsh critics of those that, in “Liberals’” account, commit the naturalistic fallacy, they actually resort to naturalistic fallacy when it comes to global warming and environmentalism when they insist that we must unconditionally protect the “natural” status quo (the climate, the wildlife, etc., as is) at all cost.. As if all simpler things were best when they are kept as they are (one of the reasons being that we, ostensibly, are not smart enough to mess up with them), while it’s OK to freely experiment with the most complicated things, like the human nature or society, dismissing a well documented history of spectacular failures in attempts to re-engineer them as minor mistakes that happen in another time and another place, so why would one even suspect that they can happen again here? (Horse’s feather.)
Luckily for those of us who are capable of thinking logically, the “Liberals” keep contradicting themselves. Figuratively speaking, they are smart enough to understand the deceitful idea of perpetual motion machine, of which the “Liberally”-socialist utopia bears striking resemblance, and to be attracted to “free” energy that such a machine is capable of producing out of nothing, but not smart enough to understand that the energy conservation law and the laws of thermodynamics preclude any chance of actually building one and turn all attempts in this respect into a zero-sum game, also known under the name of budget.
But then, it is enough to look at disastrous fiscal state of states and places run by “Liberals” to understand that the notion of budget seems to transcend their comprehension.
But if you hope that you can open their eyes so that they understand that they have been wrong and say goodbye to nonsense and lies then you will be disappointed, because for a naturally born “Liberal” there is no absurdity large enough that he could not invent even a larger absurdity that would justify it. You see, when a normal person who tries to theorize about the world reaches an absurd conclusion, he realizes that the assertions and/or inferences he has made are invalid. Not for a “Liberal”. If their ideology lets them conclude an absurdity, they will hail the nonsense that they derived as a proven thing.
I can only speculate that naturally born “Liberals” must have a strong genetic predisposition to a dogmatic religion, but since they usually tend to reject the existence of God, they treat their “Liberal” ideology as if it were religion. (In psychology such a phenomenon is known under the name of substitution.) So the more they say they are here to liberate us from God, from the government, and from the socio-economic predicament, the more they take our freedoms and liberties away in order to impose the harsh regime of the ideology that muzzles free speech and does not tolerate free thought (see notes, below, for an example of such intolerance). And that is, perhaps, the biggest “Liberal” nonsense of all.
Fortunately for us, the “Liberals” often accuse others of their own sins (in psychology, this phenomenon is known under the name of projection), so it’s not that difficult to figure out what they are up to. Just listen to what the “Liberals” say about their opponents and you will know who these “Liberals” are and what their agenda is.
NOTES
Note 1. Here is what Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor and President Obama’s nominee to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wrote (Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should “Not Tolerate Private Beliefs” That “Adversely Affect” Homosexuals):
“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people.”
Note the “do not tolerate private beliefs” phrase by a devouted “Liberal” who is, ostensibly, for liberation and tolerance. It is a typical example of self-contradictory, if not outright deceitful, “Liberal” rhetoric.
Note 2. Now, a note on the problem with California’s overcrowding prisons.
This is but a typical example of absurd consequences of “Liberal” equally absurd policy.
First, the Liberals came up with nonsense of the kind “educate not incarcerate”, “hug the thug”, etc. and extended quite a lot of help and protection to individuals tainted with criminal genes. The mantra here was that if you pay (be it by direct benefits or by providing him with an attractive job) a criminal to not break the law, he will not (at least for a time being).
This short-sighted policy has resulted in a rapid growth of the segments of general population that exhibit inheritable tendency to break the law to the point that their number among us is quite overwhelming.
Now, another “Liberal” wants those who are in jail released to the streets (Federal judges order California to release 43,000 inmates) (so that they can multiply and pass their criminal genes on their kids). And the circle closes. The result it that the criminally predisposed population is growing and that growth is diverted back to the streets. If this is not nonsense then nothing is.
January 24, 2010
~ The Author ~
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s commentaries (updated frequently) can be found here. Send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com.
[...] [2] “Liberal” nonsense http://www.federalobserver.com/2010/01/30/dwyer-liberal-nonsense/ [...]
Immigration policy in the United States is controled by traitors to the American citizenry. This is true whether you are talking about the damage it does to the enviroment,(supposedly a liberal cause), the extra crime in inflicts on Americans, the way it affects the “working man”,(another democrat cause, ahaha,) and illegal immigration, which the Democrats think is a “small” issue, is a complete slap in the face to the lawabiding citizenry. I would characterize the average liberal progressive as being a “person who DOES NOT, practice what they preach. (Gore using seven times more energy than the avearge american, Nancy Pelosi using costly military planes to fly around in, etc.etc.)
There is NO DOUBT that genes pass on traits as well as strickley physical attributes. Anyone who has had children knows this and that it is a crap shoot as to which child is going to get what, EXCEPT that we KNOW that suicide ( for one sad example) which is a behavior, runs in families just as tendencies to drug addiction, overeating, and blue eyes. If we are going to pay people to change behavior, why not offer a fair price for childlessness?
The investment would pay dividends in one short generation.