Thursday, April 21, 2011


In case you missed it, here is a rather perfect example of the underlying mindset of many on the political left, whose ideology is at heart is primitive, retrogressive, and anti-human--whether it is applied to environmental issues, political issues, or interpersonal issues:

As, Michael Walsh notes,
One thing you have to say about the Left: They never miss an opportunity to let the mask of hatred slip. It’s practically Pavlovian; they are so invested in the myth of their own righteousness that their “tolerance” fetish goes right out the window whenever they suffer the slightest affront to their delusional notion of how the world works.

Here's another example of the way the left does politics, in this case attacking a 16 year old Paul Ryan for taking government benefits after the death of his father:
Of all the banal and empty-headed Democratic debating tricks, this one is one of my least favorite: to pretend that somebody who believes a particular government service should be changed or reduced has a moral obligation to forgo the use of that service. That is the kind of sloppy thinking that should be self-refuting, but, alas, is not, particularly among our friends on the left, who are not famous for the rigor of their thinking or for the continence of their emotions, the most prominent of which is hatred.

Don't ever let those leftist 'progressives' get away with explaining to you how much more kind and compassionate their world view is....

Or, how "reality-based" their continuous appeasement and betrayal of fundamental values is...--from Andy McCarthy at The Corner who ironically noted:
I’ve been asking why the State Department has not designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization, and why Congress’s authorization for the use of military force supporting the war has not been updated to include the Taliban as part of the enemy, given that defeating the Taliban — a terrorist organization – is the stated rationale for our continuing combat operations in Afghanistan.

The obvious, if cynical, explanation seemed to be that we were planning to negotiate with the Taliban (or, at least, encourage Karzai’s negotiating with the Taliban). It is supposed to be U.S. policy — or, at least, it used to be — that we don’t negotiate with terrorists for to do so would reward and thus encourage their barbaric methods. Formally branding the terrorists as terrorists would thus complicate negotiations with them.

And, perhaps most importantly, don't ever allow yourself to believe that there is any real logic or consistency to their so-called "principled" stances.

Today's 'progressive' left is all about emotional immaturity and casual cruelty; the celebration of appearance over substance; feeling good about themselves as a necessary and sufficient condition for all political policies. The superficial mask of compassion and caring hides a profound degree of psychological denial and projection--and an intense hatred of the modern world; so much so that they are perfectly willing to drag us back to the middle ages (who does that remind you of?).

So, instead of being shocked that progressives actually are against progress (of the human sort, anyway), I figure it actually makes a psychotic sort of sense, if you appreciate the lunacy of it all.

And, oh yes. As long as we are ending our addiction to economic growth, we poor deluded non-leftists also obviously need to end our crippling addictions to reason, reality, truth and life too, because well... you know where those things will lead.

UPDATE: MORE 'ADDICTIONS' WE NEED TO BE FREED FROM! Specifically, did you know that "the rules of grammar discriminate against “marginalized” groups and restrict self-expression."? Neither did I:
Even noted composition scholar Peter Elbow, in his address, claimed that the grammar that we internalize at the age of four is “good enough.” The Internet, thankfully, has freed us from our previous duties as “grammar police,” and Elbow heralded the day when the white spoken English that has now become the acceptable standard, will be joined by other forms, like those of non-native and ghetto speakers.

Freed from standards of truth claims and grammatical construction, rhetoric is now redefined as “performance,” as in street protests, often by students demonstrating their “agency.” Expressions are made through “the body,” images, and song—sometimes a burst of spontaneous reflection on the Internet. Clothes are rhetorically important as “instruments of grander performance.”

I swear, these morons professional progressives will not be happy until the human species is once again living in caves, grunting unintelligibly and desperately scavenging for food.

It's no wonder they can relate so well to the Islamic fanatics of the world.

NOTE: You do realize that these are the people who are teaching your children, don't you?

No comments: