In the 06/13/06 blog “Don’t Confuse Hatred With No Respect“ the idea offered was that liberals view the world through a prism of hatred and project that view on anyone that does not agree with their view. Significant examples were given to support this idea. In part II this concept is additionally explored.
First, let’s define some terms. Hatred is hard to define and the dictionary does not do it justice. Webster defines hatred as the passion of hate and hate is defined as an intensely hostile aversion, compounded of anger and fear and centered on a real or supposed cause of injury. In practice the word suggest an intensity that definition does not sufficiently reflect. Webster defines respect as the special esteem or consideration in which one holds another person or thing. So, no respect would be lacking these characteristics.
The most interesting definition was that of liberalism. It was quite extensive and for the sake of brevity a partial definition by Webster will be given. It is an early 19th Century philosophy that has taken varying forms at different times in different places. It is characterized by progressive attitudes, critical of institutions and places its faith in the goodness of man and rationality. It often expresses demands for freedom of expression and equal opportunity. Economic liberalism was a phenomenon of the commercial or industrial classes, favoring free trade and the fixing of wages and prices by competition and opposing state intervention. However, in Britain it was adapted to provide welfare services and social security in conjunction with limited state intervention.
Oddly enough the definition is not relevant to modern day liberalism. As practiced today, liberalism is contrary to nearly every characteristic given in all sources reviewed. The key is the factor that it has taken various forms at different times in different places.
So, why is there such a lack of respect for liberalism and those who practice it? There are many reasons but the extremely arrogant and condescending behavior of liberals and their attempt to force liberalism on non-believers is primary. Part I gave many examples of disgraceful behavior. Let’s examine arrogance and irrationality coupled with behavior.
Liberal UCLA professor Philip E. Agre (Aug. 2004) offered some of the most outrageous and absurd characterization of conservatism and liberalism. According to Agre the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality and stated it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. He wrote that conservatism is the antithesis of democracy for thousands of years.
The intellectually dishonest propagandist listed these characteristics of conservatism; Continually twists the language of conscience into its opposite. Arguments are often arbitrary in nature. (He gave the example of conservative objection to the Clinton administration kidnapping Elian Gonzalez and returning him to Cuba as nihilistically denying the fundamental order of the universe). Has opposed rational thought for thousands of years. Has used a wide variety of methods to destroy reason throughout history.
This pious fool then follows this absurdity. He claims liberalism is the movement of conscience. If this is not a demonstration of extreme arrogance and ignorance, nothing is. And what is even more outrageous is this imbecile is a professor at a liberally acclaimed prestigious university.
Consistent behavior exhibited by liberals support that the beliefs expressed by Agre are common among liberals. Liberals claim conservatives attempt to create an aristocracy, yet they are the ones who lie, cheat or will use any means to regain and keep power. Liberals claim to be the language of conscience and their verbal assaults are the vilest, and their claim of being conscientious is manifested in maliciousness and intolerance. Liberals claim theirs is a philosophy of rational thought, yet they consistently express the most incoherent ideas that border on complete fantasy. Their claim of honesty is countered by excessive corruption.
Think about it. It is not rocket science. There is not intensely hostile aversion, nor special esteem. There is just disgust in exhibited devious behavior and hateful rhetoric. Can one really be surprised at the feeling of total disrespect due to this extremely outrageous hypocrisy?
Leave a Reply