06-25-2013, 11:37 AM
TheOTHERmaninblack Wrote:But... but... but... Can we talk about liberalism/leftism at all, then? Because, make no mistake, liberalism is its own religion, complete with dogma, blind faith, and religious pogroms. The author of the article is a prime example of this-- a zealot, if you will. Her beliefs transcend rational thought or provenance. They ignore any proselytizing by any but other true believers. Only accepted canon can penetrate the veil of her belief.
Can we accept that liberalism/leftism is a meta-religion that transcends and usurps common or traditional religions or philosophies? Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, none of those things matter to liberals. They're just masks from behind which they proffer rationalizations justifying liberalism in whatever form the believer has immersed themselves. Everything-- every belief, every tradition, every theory-- is malleable to a true believer.
Nothing means anything beyond what it can be made to mean in order to prove whatever point is currently being made, nor is any given point of any substance beyond that moment or purpose. A minute or a day later, the true believer might well offer contradictory, or even mutually exclusive "proof" or belief in order to justify some other tenet of liberalism.
Atheist? Nope. A liberal will embrace God (in any form) whenever and wherever it seems beneficial or advantageous. At the same time, a liberal will embrace a lack of God if that's what it takes. I don't believe you could even call a liberal a secularist. Even secularism requires a certain consistency that liberalism doesn't seem capable of.
This woman seems like a "true-believer", and you cannot deal with those folks without recognizing the battlefield for what it is.
To us, this woman is Karazzy! Her blind "stupidity" seems obvious on its face. Since many of us cannot conceive of that sort of thinking being natural, we flip over to "she's deliberately skewing the thought process". What if she isn't either? What if she honestly believes what she'd writing? What if her personal worldview tells her that every fact of life must have concrete rules set forth in writing and enforced by some sort of authority?
Guys, there's a reason that freedom of the sort America used to enjoy is the faintest blip on history's radar. Freedom of the sort we speak of every day as though it were as natural as taking a crap after a big meal is a statistical anomaly in the grand scheme of things. By far the largest portion of history is the tiering of classes-- those who make rules and those who obey rules. Accompanied by that much smaller subset of guys who enforce or break rules.
The average person-- the ones we here call sheep-- are more than just people who don't look out for themselves. The majority of them cannot conceive of taking care of themselves. The very idea gives many of them stomach troubles. To these folks, there is no such thing as original thought-- no such thing as free will. Every idea, concept, or desire expressed by anybody must come from somewhere else. Somebody, somewhere, has to be running things.
this is why the Tea Party scares them so much. The Tea Party doesn't really have any leaders. Not that there aren't legions of sociopaths trying to seize control. Try this as an experiment. (I have done this, by the way) Find a liberal you can stomach, sit them down, and try to explain the concept of a whole bunch of different groups of people spontaneously gathering together because there is a single point of intersection to their beliefs, and that this gathering will disburse after this single point is resolved. Watch their eyes while you're explaining that there is no central control-- no leader manipulating things from somewhere on high. Watch the struggle to understand that such a thing is even possible. Watch them fail to grasp the concept. Watch the fear flash through their eyes as they try.
We-- most of us-- here, we can grasp the concept of mutual aid without coercion. Your typical wage slave/peon/peasant cannot. they only feel safe inside a solid web of codified rules that keep all of the bad mans at bay.
LR1955, Bwaits, if this post has transgressed somehow, feel free to delete it. (as if you needed my permission:p) I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, and I'm not trying to start/proliferate any arguments. I'm just trying to establish a baseline for dealing with the sort of nonsense this article involves. And without a fundamental understanding of the religious nature of liberalism, that cannot be done.
TOMIB:
I was (and still will) cautioning people about getting religion involved. We talk about history repeating itself. Every time religion as gotten into a thread on this forum, it has ended up with the thread being locked.
If you or anyone else wants to start a thread about religion and the 2d Amendment, feel free to start one. I will let Bill moderate it and imagine it will last about two days before it gets locked.
You are right in your observations about leftists and religion but like most conservatives, have not offered a solution concerning how to deal with the type of leftist that the article presents.
The solution for her is simple. Tell her where she can go to get trained on how to use the pistol she just bought.
You guys really do need to go out and shoot more.
LR1955