The Left, aka, the Democratic party and its minions, have asserted many times how they are so superior to those Neanderthal conservatives so that they really should be the ones in power. Way back in 2007, and reposted here in 2015, is my analysis of an alleged scientific study allegedly demonstrating this point. Let me provide a small portion as an incentive to go read the whole thing:
Then in the introduction, the paper’s authors state (again, with [annotations] as an aid to translation):
Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives have been found to be more structured and persistent in their judgments and approaches to decision-making [inflexible neanderthals] as indicated by higher average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order, structure, and closure [See how paranoid those troglodytes are? The babies need order, structure, and closure!] Liberals, by contrast [See?! We’re different!], report higher tolerance [Yeah! We’re tolerant (of everyone except conservatives)!] of ambiguity [See how secure we are?] and complexity [and we’re smart, too!], and greater openness to new experiences [Wow! Bring it on! We can handle it!] on psychological measures.
One need only recall the total meltdown of the liberal left since the election results became public knowledge to see how hilariously absurd these conclusions are. And they are doing it out in the open where all can see. Mainstream America is not stupid.
And I would close with this warning/prediction: right now, their antics are ridiculously hilarious, and ineffective, and basically being ignored by normal, rational people. But if they keep it up and don’t adjust to reality, they will become increasingly disgusting and rejected to an even greater degree than they already are.
Children! Grow up already!
Dennis Prager hits it out of the ballpark in his recent essay by this title. (On a side note, Mr. Prager uses “liberal” is the historic sense compared to how I use it here on this blog. Modern leftists tend to self-identify [inaccurately per Mr. Prager and reality] as liberals and progressives, thus I use the term. In this latter sense, I would consider it pejorative in nature, whereas in Mr. Prager’s more historically accurate sense, it is not.)
A primary quote to whet your appetite (but please go read the whole thing in context), the answer to the question…
So, the Big Question is, why? Why is the left hostile toward Western civilization?
After decades of considering this question, I have concluded the answer is this: standards. The left hates standards — moral standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all three, and it has excelled in all three.
Why does the left hate standards? It hates standards because when there are standards, there is judgment. And leftists don’t want to be judged.
Mr. Prager then continues to demonstrate his thesis from the facts, of which there is an overwhelming plethora of examples.
I’m sure they’re shaking in their sandals…
Liberal Logic, using a definition of logic that defies logic…
Infamy taken to new heights…
Ignoring reality in a suicidal way…
…or as someone much wiser has said, you reap what you sow.
A few followup thoughts on my previous post. Just what is at the core of those who say they are offended by someone else’s words or actions? Why would someone be offended, especially in the emotive sense as typical of the PC crowd? It can only be because they expect something different, and specifically, they believe themselves to be entitled to whatever it is they are being denied by the alleged offender. All offense, at least in this context, is a denial of the offended by the offender.
Yet, if you look at what is decried as offense by the PC, it is almost always simply that someone has had the audacity to have a different opinion about something, and is consequently suggesting a course of action different from that of the alleged offended. I continue to use the adjective “alleged” because in most cases, the allegations are baseless in that the offense is either trivial, seeks to claim a privilege to which the offended has no right, or seeks to alter reality in a way that is divorced from fact. In other words, disagreement, and discussion, debate are found to be offensive.
In sharp contrast to the ease with which PC personages are offended, we read in Psalm 119: 165,
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
Hebrew is delightfully pictorial, and here is no exception. To be “offended” literally means “to stumble” or “to encounter a stumbling block.” Thus, to be offended is presented in the word picture of someone tripping over a stone in the path that was, for whatever reason, not observed. Generally, it is usually the one doing the tripping that is injured, not the stone that causes the fall.
Living a life that is continually being offended is a sharp contrast to the Christian principle of conduct in which we are exhorted to “follow peace with all men.” (Hebrews 12:14) It is a particularly significant contrast, for example, to the Muslim propensity to be “offended” at the slightest provocation, totally ignoring the greater “offenses” they offer other religions, and, indeed, the rest of humanity; personally, I find a sword threatening to introduce space between my head and my neck, or someone wanting to paint the landscape with my anatomy, offensive to the extreme.
The sense of entitlement in taking offense is the height of pride, one of the worst, if not the worst, of man’s fallen attributes. Thus, I would again say, to be offended in the PC way is an exercise in vapor management. It is sound and fury, signifying nothing beyond one’s own inability to think beyond oneself. Consequently, it signifies more about the one offended, and about the idiots who attempt, successfully or not, to create public policy on this foundation of quicksand.
From Breitbart (emphases added):
Frank Gaffney, founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C., defended 2016 presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson for saying Sunday on Meet The Press that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot Radio, channel 125, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration first defended Donald Trump. He asserted, “It is not anybody’s duty to opine, define or defend what the president’s religious beliefs are.”
“What does matter,” said Gaffney, “and what is our moral duty to address, are the policies that the president is pursuing.”
Gaffney, a man that Breitbart News’s Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and host of BNS called an expert on everything Jihadist, said, “Sadly the president’s policies aren’t much different than those policies that a sharia adherent Muslim would espouse in terms of advancing an Islamic supremacist program.”
The holder of a Master of Arts degree in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Gaffney recounted that “Whether it’s with the Muslim Brotherhood, or emboldening the Taliban, giving a pass to Boko Haram, not pursuing effectively operations against Islamic State; whether it’s giving Iran the Nuclear Bomb, and $150 Billion to boot, I don’t know what Obama would be doing if he were a Muslim that he is not doing right now.”
Gaffney believes that Obama’s policies should be the “subject of very concerted debate.” He is hoping that what Dr. Ben Carson did on Sunday with his comments brings to light the fact that a president can not “uphold, defend and support the constitution of the United States” and adhere to Sharia Law. “It cannot be done. Because Sharia says, ‘No it’s not the Constitution of the United States that must govern. It is God’s law. It is Sharia. It is this repressive totalitarian, misogynistic program that must govern.’”
Adherence to the Sharia is completely antithetical to the Constitution, Gaffney argues, and he asserts that it should disqualify one from being president of the United States.
Let’s be clear here. The problem most people have is the notion that Islam is just another religion that should have the freedom all religions enjoy in this country. To the extent that a mosque were to restrict itself to the worship of Allah, however wrong I believe that to be theologically, and exhorting its adherents to obeying the laws of the land wholeheartedly, they should, indeed, have that freedom. Unfortunately, true Islam is more than just a religion; Islam is an entire geopolitical system in addition to being a religion. It’s goal is to set up a theocracy (just Google the word “caliphate” if you don’t believe me); there is no separation of church and state in Islam. This is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and the laws of our land.
And note who is leading the charge against Dr. Carson and his statements: an organization that is associated with terrorists (despite what your PC friends might tell you). Sorry, they have no, as in zero, nada, credibility.