The left cares about nothing but its own perpetuation

The Left does not care about the truth. They only care about controlling people and the power to do it.

The pathology of the left goes deeper than to be fixated on perpetuation. It goes to the very foundations of human identity, so deep that most in the left are not even aware of what spirit motivates them. I said spirit and not thought because the matter of identity starts with what spirit they decided early in their lives to associate with, the spirit of truth or the spirit of un-truth.

In short, it is a decision about how to process information and how to relate to the world around them.

A person goes to this way when they decide they can sustain their own reality in their own head, and they can run that reality however they please, and the outside world will only interfere when it does so with enough force as to impose compliance.

The very first thing that goes out of the mind in this case are externally-defined, timeless moral principles. Laws, we don’t need no stinking laws. In fact laws, like every other aspect of the outside world such as facts, becomes just component parts that are selected to use and justify the inner world, the world that must be continually sustained with good feelings, the world where perception is the reality, and nothing more.

When principles and facts are not worth respecting, the only thing that is respected is power. The left is not so much about their own perpetuation as they are about power, because they cannot call upon principles, laws or facts when attempting to impose their will or to attain a goal, that is unless a selected principle, law or fact just happens to come in handy in the battle.

This is why the left is so ardent about politics and serving in government. They crave power.

At the rate newspapers are going, they’ll all be out of business in about 10 years anyway.

I agree with what you say. Although the thought can be expressed without reliance on religion (as you demonstrate), I think it can be said very straight forwardly from a Christian standpoint:

The Left demonstrates the sin of pride. They have no interest in the will of God. They only care about their own will. They do not care for moral principles, nor for facts. They believe they can make their own reality ("It depends on what the meaning of is is") through the force of their own will. It's pure arrogance.

They have put themselves in God's place and they want power equal to His.

I absolutely agree. The left exemplifies the sin of pride. It is the first and foremost of the seven deadly sins (studying those in Sunday School, so the timing is good). All sin is based on putting self before God, and as that is the sin of pride, it is with pride and self-centeredness that all the other sins begin.

The only pursuit left to a soulless left is the accumulation of power. The thought that might makes right and power flows from the barrel of a gun. The first thing to go is the Rule of Law, the concept that even the State is limited in what it can do to the individual. Unfortunately, the Rule of Law is dead or dying in our country, killed by a legal system where justice is a commodity and lawyers purchase as much as they can afford.

In the end, an oppressive totalitarian state based on power without morals is ascendant. As with every other such social structure that ever existed, the masses become alienated and disillusioned. They will throw off the the system where possible (after the fall of the iron curtain) or will be apathetic, and not care about its demise.

It is the latter course I see happening in our country, and it worries me.

Always remember this ... and repeat it often:

Liberals See What They Believe; Conservatives Believe What They See

Paul Johnson, in his Modern Times had this to say:

Of the trio of great German imaginative scholars who offered explanations of human behavior in the nineteenth century, and whose corpus of thought the post-1918 world inherited, only two so far have been mentioned. Marx described a world in which the central dynamic was economic interest. To Freud, the principal thrust was sexual. Both assumed that religion, the old impulse that moved men and masses, was a fantasy and always had been. Friedrich Nietzsche, the third of the trio, was also an atheist. But he saw God not as an invention, but as a casualty, and His demise as in some important sense an historical event which would have dramatic consequences. He wrote in 1886: "The greatest event in in recent times - that 'God is Dead,' that the belief in the Christian God is no longer tenable - is beginning to cast its first shadows upon Europe." Among the advanced races, the decline and ultimately the collapse of the religious impulse would leave a huge vacuum. The history of modern times is in great part the history how that vacuum came to be filled. Nietzsche rightly perceived that the most likely candidate would be what he called the 'Will to Power,' which offered a far more comprehensive and in the end more plausible explanation of human behavior than Marx or Freud. In place of religious belief, there would be secular ideology. Those who had once filled the ranks of the totalitarian clergy would become totalitarian politicians. And above all the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by any religious sanctions whatsoever, and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind."

And as Erik Kuhnelt-Lehddin pointed out, once Europe for the most part cast God out of the public squre and human conscience, "demons danced on their empty altars."

They have put themselves in God’s place and they want power equal to His.

I know of someone who did that and the end result was not good. He became Satan destined to rule hell forever. Since leftist don’t believe this, they will have to find out for themselves.

Thank you for your contribution.

In Ludwig von Mises’ book, the Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science [1], he wrote:

“What we know is what the nature or structure of our senses and of our mind makes comprehensible to us. We see reality, not as it “is”, and may appear to a perfect being, but only as the quality of our mind and of our senses enables us to see it. Radical empiricism and positivism do not want to admit this. As they describe it, reality writes, as experience, its own story upon the white sheets of the human mind. They admit that our senses are imperfect and do not fully and faithfully reflect reality. But they do not examine the power of the mind to produce, out of the material provided by sensation, an undistorted representation of reality. In dealing with the a priori we are dealing with the mental tools that enable us to experience, to learn, to know, and to act. We are dealing with the mind’s power, and this implies that we are dealing with the limits of its power.

“We must never forget that our representation of the reality of the universe is conditioned by the structure of our mind as well as our senses. We cannot preclude the hypothesis that there are features of reality that are hidden to our mental faculties but could be noticed by beings equipped with a more efficient mind and certainly by a perfect being. We must try to become aware of the characteristic features and limitations of our minds in order not to fall prey to the illusion of omniscience.”

What Mises observes is fundamental: We only can know what comes in through our 5 senses. Apart from what we discover and experience ourselves, we can only learn from others about this physical world. This illustrates the role of revelation in the human experience for humanity can discover or deduce some of the timeless moral principles that govern humanity, but he is totally incapable of discovering all of them.

But consider the goal of the energy expended by liberals, or whatever they called themselves before they recently wanted to now be called “progressive”. They were “hell-bent”, so to speak, on creating a God-free utopia. Vast armies of humanity were consumed in the last century in the pursuit to construct the “worker’s paradise”, and to achieve “social justice”. Even al-Quada’s viscous murders in Iraq and under the Taliban were directed at creating the perfect Islamic state on earth. At this very moment Iran seeks sufficient chaos in the world to bring back the 12th Imam.

These all share a common theme: achieving the Millenium, but doing so apart from God’s law and God’s love. Hitler did not name his government the Reich for nothing.

“The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich (”Third Empire”) and Tausendjähriges Reich (”Thousand-Year Empire”) to describe the greater German ethnic empire they wished to forge. The term Tausendjähriges Reich was used only briefly and also dropped from propaganda in 1939, officially to avoid mockery and possibly to even avoid religious connotations. In speeches, books and articles about the Third Reich after 8 May 1945, the phrase has taken on a new meaning[citation needed] and the early Nazi professions about a “thousand-year” empire are often juxtaposed against the twelve years that the Third Reich actually existed.” [2]

Those who strive to attain the perfect socialist man and society even are working towards a goal that is really spiritual in nature: the redemption and salvation of humanity via secular means. Recall that the Khmer Rouge force people out of the cities and into the countryside,

“Envisaging a primitive egalitarian agrarianism, the Khmer Rouge favored a temporary return to a completely agrarian society to the point that all modern technological contrivances were banned except when approved by the inner party leadership. The return to the land was intended to purify the people as a whole and create a basis for a new communist society...” [3]

Again, the vain, painful and bloody attempt to achieve salvation without the only Savior that God will ever give to humanity (Acts 4:12). Humans cannot attain the state of perfection apart from God, but that has not and will not stop many from trying nor will it deter the vast majority of humanity from supporting those who promise this might be possible.

A substantial component of this delusion is that somehow the real world does not matter. This is highlighted in the specious popularism: “Perception is Reality”. As von Mises dryly stated, perception is faulty and limited in ways we cannot fully understand. Perception, in fact, is the last basis by which we should come to conclusions about reality. Indeed, when it comes to perceptions about the transcendent, we must rely on God to tell us, for humans simply do not have any facility to sense the reality of about this issue.

I am convinced that every human, at an early age, decides how they will ‘run’ their thinking. Where will reality be anchored, inside their heads or outside? Which will prevail? Will the person try to control what constitute as “fact” by what they allow to be true, or will they try to bring their understanding of what is true into line with the facts they can collect? To accept principles or make your own? To accept facts or make your own?

I describe a process that all humans must go through, even though they are not even aware of it. At its core, it is about how a person habituates their brain to processing and evaluating information. This means that when a group of people see the same collection of evidence, how will they proceed to evaluate it, and what conclusion are they likely to reach?

Even though every human is different, they tend to cluster into two main groups: those who accept reality and conform their thoughts and lives to it and those for whom reality is something that is going on outside of the world they live in.

[1] http://www.mises.org/books/ufofes/ Chapter 1, Section 3.

[2] From Wikipedia article, “Nazi Germany” at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich

[3] From Wikipedia article: “Pol Pot” at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Instead of him saying "Sorry, DEMs" it should be "Sorry DEMs!"! LOL! It needed fixing! :D

Perspicuously said. Sad to contemplate what we are up against.

Thank you for your well-informed and thoughtful response and commentary. This sort of discussion of the pedigree of ideas and historical events is sadly lacking today. We hear nothing like this from our alleged leadership.

Ideas do matter, and they do have consequences. Dreadful consequences as history so clearly shows.

Middle East leaders and terrorists state that America is full of wickedness.

They are correct.

The terrorists were afraid of the “Cowboy President” because he walked the walk.

The wickedness they refer to is the liberals and lefties who would sell their own mothers to gain power and wealth. Who would deny faith in God.

That is the sickness that is taking over this country, and either we put an end to it, or they will put an end to all of us.

Notice that in the Bible, in Revelations, the United States is no longer in play when the end times come.

No nation can survive if it is divided, no house can stand it it’s foundation is removed.

...either we put an end to it, or they will put an end to all of us.

That, sir, is the elephant in the living room. Far too many of us either refuse to face the true nature of our foreign and domestic enemies, or otherwise choose to believe that they can be reasoned with and appeased.

Let's quote Paul Johnson again:

"And above all the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by any religious sanctions whatsoever, and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind."

Islam and the liberal socialists in this country share a common goal: they seek dominion over the tiniest details of both our economic AND our inner lives. The choice they offer is pretty clear - death or spiritual and economic slavery.

So, when your opponents lack the price of admission to civilized debate: a respect for reason, belief in objective truth, and a willingness to admit they're wrong when the facts prove it so - what then?

When your opponents' goals are to destroy the very foundation of your culture and your society - and to offer nothing in return but the howling nightmare of a society of cannibals and looters - what then?

When your opponents seize and indoctrinate your children's' minds in the politics of victimization and the nobility of human servitude and sacrifice - what then?

When the institutions of higher learning are occupied by Marxist multiculturalists who despise the very philosophical foundation upon which the architecture of liberty and human dignity have been be constructed - what then?

We know the answer - as Samuel P. Huntington said, "History shows that no country so constituted can long endure as a coherent society."

Let's spell it out: that means a prolonged and dirty war within this country with no certain outcome.

:)) ...We haaave LIFTOFF!!!