What Leftism Does To People

Alias

Banned
The true test of a philosophy is not what it promises to make of the world but what it makes, in fact, of its adherents. Human nature is remarkably recalcitrant, but ideas do affect people over time, for good or ill, and the societies people make will ultimately bear the image of those effects and thus of the ideas. When historian Paul Johnson, in his book Intellectuals, detailed the often vicious and demented lives of such thinkers as Rousseau, Shelley, and Marx, he was not engaging in casual ad hominem attacks, or playing gotcha with our universal tendencies toward weakness, perversion, and moral failure. He was attempting to trace both the origins and the consequences of his subjects’ philosophical errors. Our beliefs arise from who we are and we become what we believe, a process which, according to our choices, can either resemble a spiral staircase heavenward or a flushing toilet. To him who has, more will be given, and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful. The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion. I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/
 
More educated people are democrats, why did you skip college?

Your personal opinion doesn't translate into fact just because you speak it. The evidence is what you show on this forum and that is quite lacking in intelligence.
 
"Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other"

Well, that line deserves a "c'mon, man!" Polite? You really don't have to look beyond the behavior at some of the town halls re: healthcare to know that's ridiculous.

It's also absurd to try to paint "the left" by the occupy movements, or "the right" by the TEA partiers. Generalizations are a fail.
 
Ah, setting us up for a good 'ole guilt by association. That's my favorite!
LOL Exactly. DY does the exact same kind of rationalizing. It's hillareous. Arrogant to, you only feed these line of crap to people if A.) You think they are incredibly stupid or B.) You are incredibly stupid yourself! LOL
 
Ah, setting us up for a good 'ole guilt by association. That's my favorite!

Look at the product. If the shoe fits, wear it. Birds of a feather flock together.

That's the way it works. You must be a lefty if you think natural order in mother nature is "guilt by association".
 
"Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other"

Well, that line deserves a "c'mon, man!" Polite? You really don't have to look beyond the behavior at some of the town halls re: healthcare to know that's ridiculous.

It's also absurd to try to paint "the left" by the occupy movements, or "the right" by the TEA partiers. Generalizations are a fail.

This health care bill is a joke and you know it. Don't blame the Tea Party for being against a bad bill. Blame your fellow dems who had to bribe blue dog dems to get it passed.
 
Educated people aren't all right or left like you are. And the economy is worse for the uneducated. I could see how an old single fart like you tries the old white race pride thing. You have nothing else. Sad
 
Look at the product. If the shoe fits, wear it. Birds of a feather flock together.

That's the way it works. You must be a lefty if you think natural order in mother nature is "guilt by association".

It is the sort of argument I would make if I were creating a hyperbolically idiotic argument to mock conservatives. Using such broad descriptions as "the right", I could easily pull such a thing on you. Of course, you would respond with a "No True Scotsman". "Hitler wasn't a right-winger, since I don't see my political views as being anything close to his." You may even go off into la-la-land, and tell me that Hitler was actually a raging left-winger, along with all other right-wingers who've done anything bad in the past. However, I think it's pretty clear that I don't see my political views as being very close to Stalins either; perhaps you should realize this, maybe you will get some much need perspective. I think the lack of mass killings in Democratic controlled state governments, or in pretty much any democratic country that has ever had a left-wing government ever, would probably attest to the fact that most "left-wingers" do not, in fact, generally have similar views to Stalin. And conservatives are, in fact, on to something in stating that Hitler does not bear much resemblance to conseratives (however, not so right in coming to the conclusion that this naturally means Hitler was a liberal).

In fact, looking at the practical realities on the grounds of these states, the Nazi's and the Communists resembled each other a lot more than they do the "left" or "right" parties in any democratic country. There's a reason for this; ideology doesn't really have as much power as people think it does. People bend and twist ideology to the practical realities of the day. There are practical realities that mean that an authoritian dictatorship needs to look like an authoritarian dictatorship and why a democracy usually looks like a democracy. So Sweden, which was controlled by a Social Democratic party for about 50 years or so, looks a lot more like us than the Soviet Union. Modern people like to claim that socialism and communism are completely different things; this isn't exactly true. The first name of the Russian Communist party actually had "Social Democratic" in the title. Communist was just a term they ressurrected after they assumed power, and they often officially referred to themselves as socialist. But, again, in practical terms, they didn't look anything like what socialist parties in democratic countries evolved into. And there are reasons for that: ideology is meaningless. The Marxist-Leninists believed they had found the shortcut to utopia in authoritarian dictatorship; they just became an authoritarian dictatorship. Democratic socialists just dropped most of that unrealistic nonsense over time and became the sort of generic center-left opposition that emerged in every other country as well.
 
It is the sort of argument I would make if I were creating a hyperbolically idiotic argument to mock conservatives. Using such broad descriptions as "the right", I could easily pull such a thing on you. Of course, you would respond with a "No True Scotsman". "Hitler wasn't a right-winger, since I don't see my political views as being anything close to his." You may even go off into la-la-land, and tell me that Hitler was actually a raging left-winger, along with all other right-wingers who've done anything bad in the past. However, I think it's pretty clear that I don't see my political views as being very close to Stalins either; perhaps you should realize this, maybe you will get some much need perspective. I think the lack of mass killings in Democratic controlled state governments, or in pretty much any democratic country that has ever had a left-wing government ever, would probably attest to the fact that most "left-wingers" do not, in fact, generally have similar views to Stalin. And conservatives are, in fact, on to something in stating that Hitler does not bear much resemblance to conseratives (however, not so right in coming to the conclusion that this naturally means Hitler was a liberal).

In fact, looking at the practical realities on the grounds of these states, the Nazi's and the Communists resembled each other a lot more than they do the "left" or "right" parties in any democratic country. There's a reason for this; ideology doesn't really have as much power as people think it does. People bend and twist ideology to the practical realities of the day. There are practical realities that mean that an authoritian dictatorship needs to look like an authoritarian dictatorship and why a democracy usually looks like a democracy. So Sweden, which was controlled by a Social Democratic party for about 50 years or so, looks a lot more like us than the Soviet Union. Modern people like to claim that socialism and communism are completely different things; this isn't exactly true. The first name of the Russian Communist party actually had "Social Democratic" in the title. Communist was just a term they ressurrected after they assumed power, and they often officially referred to themselves as socialist. But, again, in practical terms, they didn't look anything like what socialist parties in democratic countries evolved into. And there are reasons for that: ideology is meaningless. The Marxist-Leninists believed they had found the shortcut to utopia in authoritarian dictatorship; they just became an authoritarian dictatorship. Democratic socialists just dropped most of that unrealistic nonsense over time and became the sort of generic center-left opposition that emerged in every other country as well.

You must have some real good smoke.

Conservatism is pro individual. Liberalism is pro statist. It's not the difficult.
 
Back
Top