Pie in the Sky Liberals(How soon before they begin throwing bombs again ?)

Pie in the Sky Liberals (How soon before they begin throwing bombs again?)
The American Prowler ^ | 4/14/2005 | George Neumayr


Posted on 04/14/2005 12:40:50 AM PDT


In the 1960s, radicals began their march through the institutions of American society. They marched through them, stayed long enough to find the exits, and now end up right back where they started: on the outside, in a state of powerless, clawing anger, hurling pies at "establishment' figures and wishing death upon congressmen and presidents.

The left's feelings of impotent 1960s-style rage can be measured in Drudge Report headlines, such as: "Website sells 'Kill Bush' T-Shirts," and in Drudge's now weekly links to stories about pundits pied by liberals who clearly regard their victims as members of a new establishment. Like children who hurl their baby food as a form of protest, liberals in a state of infantile, frustrated rationality are reduced to tossing sugary and oily products at Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan and stomping their feet at Ann Coulter.

Underneath the robes, vestments, and suits they collected during their march through the institutions remained the grubby attire of radicalism only now visible as they return to their posture of primitive protesting -- a wild, speechless style of protest that throws light on liberalism's essential hostility to reason and morality. Why do liberals who regard themselves as apostles of Enlightenment reason resort so quickly to intimidation and primitive exertion of will? Because fundamentally liberalism is based not on reason but on force. It is a willfulness writ large that becomes more vivid as liberals lose power and fail to control a people unpersuaded by claims that find no basis in reality and thus cannot be calmly demonstrated by reason.

When ancient radical Anthony Lewis says that liberals "need a new people," he's not joking: they need a different people with a different human nature, because the heart, mind, and soul God created will never find lasting satisfaction in their liberalism.

The only part of human nature that liberalism can appeal to is the part God didn't create -- man's inherited tendency toward irrationality that Western philosophers used to call original sin or concupiscence.

Liberalism is concupiscence intellectualized -- think about how often it ends up telling people to take the low road, feel good about being bad, renames raw selfishness and greed "justice," encourages nihilism and cruelty in one form or another and then calls it self-expression. Because of its basic appeal to an irrational love of self, liberalism can always find an audience eager to hear a justification for letting wayward desires trump reason, but most people know that this will produce too much chaos to sustain a civilization, and so they rush back to conservatism once the yoke of liberalism grows too heavy and they return to their senses.

Liberalism's revolutions are not brought about by reason -- systematically presenting its philosophy to the people over time (that's the last thing liberals want to do, as it gives the people too much of an opportunity to see its holes) -- but by fraud or force. Liberalism can fool the people through sophistry and demagoguery, dressing up falsehoods in rhetoric and crassly appealing to people's weaknesses, or it can use state power to engineer them. When fraud fails, force follows.

Because liberalism is a sustained violation of human nature, violence as a tool of change is never far from it it. Its radicals use violence to get state power, then use state power to commit more of it. As the Enlightenment philosophes noted with pride, the most ruthless revolutions are carried out not against state power but with it.

In possession of state power, liberals can behave more decorously. There is no need to throw pies at conservatives when you can unleash bureaucrats and judges on them. But deprive liberals of that power and they regress rapidly, justifying any animalistic protest in the name of revolution. When Hillary Clinton spoke to feminists at the March for Women's Lives last year, the feminists, sensing that power was ebbing away from them in Red State America, held aloft signs wishing that George Bush's mother had aborted him (as well as signs wishing Pope John Paul II's mom had "choice").

The pie-throwing and death-to-Delay-and-Bush T-shirts are just the beginning. That and much worse will spread in proportion to liberalism's loss of state power as the march through America's institutions begins anew.

Au contraire, mi amoeba, â??tis the neo-cons living a pie-in-the-sky dream, a dream of global hegemony, and therefore deserving of the pie-in-the-face to perhaps bring them down to earth, to divest themselves of the cloak of hubris they have wrapped themselves in â?¦


http://www.pieman.org/pageb.html

It's awe inspiring how much absurd crap mainstream politics is able to generate.

Quote:

---

In the 1960s, radicals began their march through the institutions of American society. They marched through them, stayed long enough to find the exits, and now end up right back where they started: on the outside, in a state of powerless, clawing anger, hurling pies at "establishment' figures and wishing death upon congressmen and presidents.

---

Right off the bat 'liberals' are conflated with 'radicals'. Liberal opposition to the Vietnam slaughter came about well after prominent capitalists had begun to consider it too costly. Even then liberal opposition was reserved and never questioned Pax Americana, or, god forbid, capitalism and hierarchy generally which any decent critique necessitates. Of course liberals wouldn't properly analyze or oppose such things: 'Liberals' are essentialy no different than 'conservatives', in fact their track record might just be worse. Certainly there are strategic differences aswell as a few other irrelevancies, but essentialy they are identical. Asuming we've ignored that, then bthis alleged 'liberal cycle' only exists if we also ignore the fact that liberals were already 'part of the establishment', are necessarily so, and have always been so. The radical student movements of the 60's, for all their flaws (holy fuck were there flaws) cannot be faulted for resistance per se. The first 'argument' advanced against protests, demonstrations, etc. is a sneaky ad hominem equating resistance with whiney children. The arrogance is unmistakebly rich, white, and imperial. The second doesn't fare much better. The writer suggests that protest is intrinsically irrational, because, apparently, opression is a myth and legitimate grievances do not exist. Certainly protest is moribund and, more often than not, a distinctly liberal affair inasmuch as it has become synonymous with that privileged fantasy world. This is not, however, the critique being made.

Quote:

---

The left's feelings of impotent 1960s-style rage can be measured in Drudge Report headlines, such as: "Website sells 'Kill Bush' T-Shirts," and in Drudge's now weekly links to stories about pundits pied by liberals who clearly regard their victims as members of a new establishment. Like children who hurl their baby food as a form of protest, liberals in a state of infantile, frustrated rationality are reduced to tossing sugary and oily products at Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan and stomping their feet at Ann Coulter.

Underneath the robes, vestments, and suits they collected during their march through the institutions remained the grubby attire of radicalism only now visible as they return to their posture of primitive protesting -- a wild, speechless style of protest that throws light on liberalism's essential hostility to reason and morality. Why do liberals who regard themselves as apostles of Enlightenment reason resort so quickly to intimidation and primitive exertion of will? Because fundamentally liberalism is based not on reason but on force. It is a willfulness writ large that becomes more vivid as liberals lose power and fail to control a people unpersuaded by claims that find no basis in reality and thus cannot be calmly demonstrated by reason.

---

There must be an argument dispenser in this gentleman's asshole. Quickly rip off Washington and there is no need to justify or explore the situation (particularly the double edged nature of the charge).

Quote:

---

The only part of human nature that liberalism can appeal to is the part God didn't create -- man's inherited tendency toward irrationality that Western philosophers used to call original sin or concupiscence.

Liberalism is concupiscence intellectualized -- think about how often it ends up telling people to take the low road, feel good about being bad, renames raw selfishness and greed "justice," encourages nihilism and cruelty in one form or another and then calls it self-expression. Because of its basic appeal to an irrational love of self, liberalism can always find an audience eager to hear a justification for letting wayward desires trump reason, but most people know that this will produce too much chaos to sustain a civilization, and so they rush back to conservatism once the yoke of liberalism grows too heavy and they return to their senses.

---

It's amusing how elastic these 'philosophies' are, I suspect it's because they are marketing tools. "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" may have some kind of precedents and traditions (in some cases these may even show up vaguely in rhetoric and image), but they are largely irrelevant to the contemporary American Scene let alone reality.

the values of the domocrats and republicans have changed in the last 20 -30 years.a complete role reversal.the democrats are now the party of super rich white people.anyone who looks at it can see that.now thjat the minorities are beginning to see that the democrats could give two shits about them or their cause.now that they can see people like jesse jackson and al sharpton hurt their cause more than help it.i promise the republican minority vote will continue to grow every election.it's no wonder scum bags like hillary want to allow convicted felons the right to vote.they are gonna need em in the future.

Howdy Ihateapplesandsalt,

You say:"It's amusing how elastic these 'philosophies' are, I suspect it's because they are marketing tools. "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" may have some kind of precedents and traditions (in some cases these may even show up vaguely in rhetoric and image), but they are largely irrelevant to the contemporary American Scene let alone reality."

I say..sounds like you're one of them thar high-falootin,smug,arrogant,snobby,liberal elitists..that hates to be called a 'liberal'..I could be wrong..if so,I apologize..may I ask..who did you vote for..Bush or Kerry ? Or did ya sit out the election ?

I tell you what..conservatism is a way of life..not a collection of 'precedents and traditions'..it's a whole 'nother way of thinking and living..not just a label.

I find,that it's entirely relevant to contemporary America,it will take all sorts of conservatives,to oppose and defeat,the other way of thinking and living,the liberal mind-set,which has thoroughly embraced the culture of Death..and seeks to turn America,into a third-world,secular country.

Have a good one....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy Ihateapplesandsalt,

I say..sounds like you're one of them thar high-falootin,smug,arrogant,snobby,liberal elitists..that hates to be called a 'liberal'..I could be wrong..if so,I apologize..may I ask..who did you vote for..Bush or Kerry ? Or did ya sit out the election ?

---

I'm something more of an anarchist. And I'm canadian, but I wouldn't have implicated myself in the election.

Quote:

---

I tell you what..conservatism is a way of life..not a collection of 'precedents and traditions'..it's a whole 'nother way of thinking and living..not just a label.

---

I'm sure the 'lifestyle' of hard core republicans and their fellow travelers is quite different from a hard core democrat, but what I contend is that there is little substantive difference between the parties, the democrats just tend to be a little less coarse about the whole affair.

Quote:

---

I find,that it's entirely relevant to contemporary America

---

I suppose it depends on how you use relevant, but still that's not quite what I was saying. I was stating that I don't think that the republican party is the party of conservatism, and that 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' are just convenient labels for an almost anomolous scene.

Quote:

---

it will take all sorts of conservatives,to oppose and defeat,the other way of thinking and living,the liberal mind-set,which has thoroughly embraced the culture of Death..and seeks to turn America,into a third-world,secular country.

Have a good one....

---

Well, seperation of church and state sort of preceedes John Kerry. I guess that ship has sailed. And of course 'liberals' embrace 'the culture of death', just as do 'conservatives'. That is if we're talking about the astronomically more important sort of 'culture of death' that perpetuates American imperialism and not Terry Schiavo. Could you clarify exactly how 'liberals' are attemtping to transform America into a 3rd world country?

one day torog will get bored with liberal bashing, most likely when his issues shift to something else like furry fetishes or something. until then.. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ihateapplesandsalt

I'm something more of an anarchist. And I'm canadian, but I wouldn't have implicated myself in the election.



I'm sure the 'lifestyle' of hard core republicans and their fellow travelers is quite different from a hard core democrat, but what I contend is that there is little substantive difference between the parties, the democrats just tend to be a little less coarse about the whole affair.



I suppose it depends on how you use relevant, but still that's not quite what I was saying. I was stating that I don't think that the republican party is the party of conservatism, and that 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' are just convenient labels for an almost anomolous scene.



Well, seperation of church and state sort of preceedes John Kerry. I guess that ship has sailed. And of course 'liberals' embrace 'the culture of death', just as do 'conservatives'. That is if we're talking about the astronomically more important sort of 'culture of death' that perpetuates American imperialism and not Terry Schiavo. Could you clarify exactly how 'liberals' are attemtping to transform America into a 3rd world country?

---

all you so called anarchists will be the first ones killed!lol

The Republicans love to say that they supoport a a culture of life. Let me ammend that. It is not rank and file repub's but the freaky right wing christians who have a warped idea of what "life" is. A fetus is life and so is a brain damaged lady but the hundreds of criminals killed by the courts by the death penalty are ok. (something about innocence) The millions dying in Dafur are fair game and so are the kids dying in our inner cities and rural area due to malnutrition and crime. Yes I know this "must be" liberal propaganda but i think it really is a logic hole in the culture of life.

Now for the dumbucrats who for the last 8 years couldn't their arse with both hands. They so scared to take a stand on anything I wouldn't trust them with feeding my fish.

The radical right are rather moronic. They are fighting a battle for some ideal that nobody but a very few in this country will every understand or care about or benefit in the long run.

HOwever my greatest and biggest fear is that wack right. Not rank and file conservative republicans although I am not one of them but the those who say we need more relegion and less science, less law more government moral control. Torog? mentioned that a secular US would lead us towards a 3rd world status. Sorry to tell yo man in a country where we teach creationism and biblical "science" we are already a third world science power. Why does America have to by its' brain power in engineering and some sciences form India and other countries who where writing on Paper 1000 years before some of our kids are told the world existed. We are moving from the beacon of scientific discovery and innovation to to the buyer of skills on the open market.

Torog as a good American how in the hell can you defend thator are you just counting on the fact that God will smote or smite the the infidels.

maybe when we all realize that life is life no matter how it is lived we can drop all this fighting and just get along regardless of who we vote for?

So true :p

HOLY SHIT I didn't Know George Bush was a member !