Subversion Part Two
Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 10:29 amThis goes off what I said about objective categorical reason before.
Below is a paradigm which illustrates the different types of liberals and conservatives:
Now to be fair, all conservatives aren't bad people. There are some who are openminded to the gracious nature of humanity, so they don't bully others around for no reason.
On the other hand, many liberals are bad people. They're lazy bums and wise guys. They leech off others who apply themselves to become successful.
The problem is that modern liberalism hasn't gotten over this lazy bum problem. The obsession of equality has bled into the transformation of liberalism into an anti-intellectual movement that doesn't care so much for creative thinking as much as it cares about libertinism. It has denied the value of culture because culture was occasionally oppressive in history such as how Judeo-Christian tradition oppressed women and minorities. It also prohibited people from living lifestyles that were deemed unacceptable as in the case of folk community common sense...
...but there's a difference between prohibiting that which is emotionally versus thoughtfully different. Again, we see that relativism has allowed liberalism to become subverted from the inside out because of its confusion of culture with ethics. No longer is liberalism an ideology that expects people to be respected for who they are as individuals on the inside that counts, but instead, social democracy has been used as an excuse for traditional conservatism where people are expected to conform to norms. The definition of what's "normal" has changed, but it's still normal.
Those who are unwilling to conform are told they're imposing their values onto others, but in reality, the victim is being blamed behind rugged individualism. Heck, it can even get to the point of being told that people who have individual issues are blaming society for their laziness when they actually aren't lazy.
I don't know what labels to give this dimension of politics, but there is definitely some cross-ideological dimension at hand. I'd call it idealism and pragmatism except those who often stand up for ideals are the pragmatic ones in society, and those who stand up for what's pragmatic have nothing really to stand on except for hot air.
Below is a paradigm which illustrates the different types of liberals and conservatives:
Now to be fair, all conservatives aren't bad people. There are some who are openminded to the gracious nature of humanity, so they don't bully others around for no reason.
On the other hand, many liberals are bad people. They're lazy bums and wise guys. They leech off others who apply themselves to become successful.
The problem is that modern liberalism hasn't gotten over this lazy bum problem. The obsession of equality has bled into the transformation of liberalism into an anti-intellectual movement that doesn't care so much for creative thinking as much as it cares about libertinism. It has denied the value of culture because culture was occasionally oppressive in history such as how Judeo-Christian tradition oppressed women and minorities. It also prohibited people from living lifestyles that were deemed unacceptable as in the case of folk community common sense...
...but there's a difference between prohibiting that which is emotionally versus thoughtfully different. Again, we see that relativism has allowed liberalism to become subverted from the inside out because of its confusion of culture with ethics. No longer is liberalism an ideology that expects people to be respected for who they are as individuals on the inside that counts, but instead, social democracy has been used as an excuse for traditional conservatism where people are expected to conform to norms. The definition of what's "normal" has changed, but it's still normal.
Those who are unwilling to conform are told they're imposing their values onto others, but in reality, the victim is being blamed behind rugged individualism. Heck, it can even get to the point of being told that people who have individual issues are blaming society for their laziness when they actually aren't lazy.
I don't know what labels to give this dimension of politics, but there is definitely some cross-ideological dimension at hand. I'd call it idealism and pragmatism except those who often stand up for ideals are the pragmatic ones in society, and those who stand up for what's pragmatic have nothing really to stand on except for hot air.