Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Double-Think

Young Libs tend not to know that their political slogans are not paradigms. That is, their paradigms are not paradigms. Their slogans do not attach respect for limits and borders that are necessary if anything is to be explicated. Slogans, not math, are Libs’ forte.


Sure, you don’t have to be a mathematician to appreciate that physical relationships and changes entail measurable tradeoffs (fluxing equations). But … instead of understanding that, Libs tend simply to bounce from one unbounded slogan to the next. Such as: America is imperialistic; whites are racists; Conservatives are hypocrites, capitalism has failed; give them the wealth; power to the people; boundaries are not fair; discrimination is bad; all cultures are of equal moral value; American repression is the root cause of suffering in North Korea and Iran; Zionism is the root cause of Islamic jihad; Che was a freedom fighter; etc.

Many leaders and profs of Young Libs prefer not to teach them how to think critically, i.e., to respect systems and limits. Rather, Libs are like cattle, to be immersed in p.c., self esteem, entitlement theories, and proper slogans. Because only their handlers can be trusted to know best. Because their handlers have little regard for human dignity, self reliance, or freedom of thought. Like Mao, their handlers are invested in a material fantasy for themselves or for the planet, not bounded by reasoned respect for most other human beings.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Combat" can entail many aspects, such as: quest for food, sustenance, survival, replication, flourishing, fulfillment, meaning, art, Appreciation, Communication, Relationship, respect, and so on. In any event, it's all part of a piece, and "the opposing other" is part and parcel of it.
I agree with Andrew Klavan's notion in Empire of Lies ... or at least my interpretation: that we are perspectives or avatars for fundamentally opposing worldviews. The first considers that we are involved day to day with a morally guiding meta Source; the second considers that the meta Source has given us our scientific and moral marching orders and then withdrawn. The second is the view of godless scientists, commies, moral zombies, and deity perverters. IMHO. In any event, we can hardly ignore those of the second view. They are part of the struggle ... or "combat." Maybe they represent mankind's inward struggle with his own search for meaning, like Rodin's "Thinker."
Bottom line: There will always be those who are so overwhelmed by the burden of thinking for themselves that they will want to "find answers" by sinking themselves into a mindless collective where individual "ignorance is strength," such as in a umma, utopia, Marxist collective, socialistic N.W.O., or scientifically prescriptive Walden II. There will never be an end to Democratic Socialism, because ignorance will be with us ... always.