Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need to Impeach (Movement)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    The left is constantly circling the wagons to protect the worst among them. Like the National Socialists they only really believe in power. Like other religions they need a supreme authority to protect the revealed truth of social justice. They don't really seem to mind if that authority is vested in sociopaths such as Mao, Stalin or Clinton. Why this psychological phenomenon repeats itself is probably related to tribal instincts.

    I was watching a documentary on Jordon Peterson and it ended with commentary from a leftist intellectual. His take was that Peterson's advise to teach children discipline was proof that Peterson was an authoritarian at heart. He went on to say Peterson was a hypocrite because he criticizes leftist regimes and Marx but never talks about the horrors of Christianity. The glaring logical fallacy is the appeal to purity compounded by a lack of self awareness. It would be nice if the left was slightly more sophisticated.

    Christianity originated as an eschatological cult focused on reforming Judaism. It's connecting to political theory does not go beyond the fact that Judaism was at the time theocratic where law and religion were inseparable. As far as we can tell from the text it was anti authoritarian to the extent that it criticized the ruling priesthood. The focus was on the individual's relationship with God not the state. Marxism on the other hand is all about the collective dictatorship of the proletariat. The individual has no personal relationship with the state God because their identity is defined by class or in it's current manifestation race, gender, sex, ethnicity, etc.

    The key to understanding why comparing Christian atrocities to Marxists atrocities is sophomoric can be summed up in two words, Roman Catholic. The Christian cult spread rapidly through the Roman empire because Rome was nothing if not authoritarian. The message of an individual relationship with a loving God must have been very appealing to people use to a God emperor who was anything but loving. To deal with the anarchy of a doctrine that had no central authority one was created.

    When people talk of Western Civilization being Judeo-Christian they ignore the schizophrenic relationship between the original dogma and the political reality. Once you call yourself Roman you have embraced an authoritarian mantle. Western Civilization is primarily Greco-Roman not Judeo-Christian from the political perspective. At least in it's origins Christianity was apolitical. That is the Judeo-Christianity that Peterson is talking to. I find his separation of Judaism from theocracy somewhat disconcerting but his focus on the logos makes it acceptable.

    There are so many lies in the Marxist narrative it is hard to single one out. As it relates to this discussion the primary misleading dogma is that a democratic dictatorship is logically superior to liberal democracy. It is the source of the cognitive dissonance that allows socialist states to become actual dictatorships. The second is the mischaracterization of Marxism as primarily an economic theory. Marxism cannot be implemented without authoritarian political control. It is a secular religion in the sense that it requires acceptance of the revealed truth of social justice. As political philosophy it is dismal because it relies on it's revealed truths to be self evident. It appeals to tribal instincts of the worst kind because it is obsessed with the collective identity by class. It appeals to academics because of their sense that their tribe has been unjustly slighted in the social power structures. There is no mystery as to why it is so parasitic or popular.




    The biggest problem with your argument is that the Catholic Church is one of the most authoritarian organizations in the world today, even going so far as to prevent prosecution of criminals within their church and dictating the reproductive activities of their flocks.

    The purpose of every organization is to exert power and control. There is very little difference between Marxism with it's state ownership of everything and subjugation to the state and Catholicism's ownership of vast amounts of properties and wealth and it's subjugation of all members to the complete authority of the Church. They just word it a little differently. Marxists claim that the State is god, and the Catholic Church claims they directly speak for god.

    However, this has little to do with the politically motivated impeachment movement as a means of hampering and preventing our elected government in its performance of its obligated duties and functions. The impeachment movement is an attempt to usurp power by less than legal means.

    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #17
      I have just listened for an hour to a "liberal" argue that it is objectively immoral to deny that a trans-person is the sex they have transitioned into. The argument is that language is in this case normative and not descriptive. It gives an insight into the left's mind. First the argument is that the purpose of social organization is individual happiness. It follows that language as a subset of social organization must to be moral serve happiness. The problem with this argument is that you can't decouple the descriptive from the normative. When language is no longer fundamentally descriptive it cannot be normative. Even if language is used to create the "good" which is by the debaters definition the state of happiness it can only do so because language is descriptive in the sense of shared definitions.

      I once had an argument with a "liberal" and said it was just semantics to which they replied there is a special place in hell for people who say just semantics. This represents a misconception of what just semantics means. It does not mean a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It means that if we can't agree on the descriptive meaning we can't agree on the normative meaning. Just semantics is a way of saying your view of reality I do not share. If you trying to have a conversation then you must value semantics and definitions. The key is that the definitions are meaningless unless you are talking about the same reality behind the definitions. This particular person was very receptive to the concept of emotional intelligence so the argument could be made that the emotional effect of the semantics override the descriptive connection to reality. That takes us back to happiness defines the good.

      It would all be perfectly acceptable if happiness was not a neuro-chemical state. The biological nature of the good is then self evident. It becomes a self defeating argument because biology requires descriptive not normative definitions. What liberals are arguing is that reality can be transformed by language. The problem is that can only be true over time if language consistently creates the conditions for the good happiness. Those conditions are unfortunately tied to physical reality. It is the curse of high verbal IQ being out of balance with spacial IQ.

      It is objectively true that the abstract effects the physical. That social constructions have physical consequences. What is lost sight of is that there are physical restraints on social constructions. Calling a man a women does not make it so any more than you can distribute wealth by distributing money. Consequentialistists need to be wary of assuming that consequences are predictable if they are excessively abstract. That is the argument for the least popular school of philosophy, pragmatism.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #18
        Simpler version: The Left believes that truth, facts, and even reality are mutable. They can be whatever you want them to be.

        Comment


        • #19
          Why don't you criticize Trump and his corrupt administration who lie continually and rely on 'alternate facts'? Your stance on veracity is a double standard as well as hypocritical.
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            And which of those socialist dictators are you offering up for our consideration? Your party is, after all, the Anti-American Party.
            \Angela Hitler, now that her brother is seriously under the weather....
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X