Liberalism is sin


If you try to understand liberalism, you will either duct tape your head to keep it from exploding or end up with a serious drinking problem.


Liberalism does not make sense.  That is, unless you understand one fundamental underpinning of liberalism.


Liberalism is sin.


Most people have an immediate reaction to that statement.  Either they support it or totally reject it based on the assumption it is a religious dissertation on liberalism. 


It is not.  Religion has almost nothing to do with it.


If religion has nothing to do with it, how is liberalism a sin?


To understand why liberalism is a sin, there are a couple of concepts that must be understood.  First, the world as we know it is government by laws.  There are laws that govern science, math, economics and liberty. 


These laws exist whether we like them or not.  And they may not be violated without consequences. 


Sin is not just violating the laws of God.  It is violating the laws of nature. 


Gravity is not just a good idea, it is the law.  If anyone doubts that, go jump from a tall building and you will quickly discover the penalty for violating the law of gravity.


Economics has certain laws.  Even if economists cannot agree on a lot of things, there are certain rules that apply.  If you create too many dollars chasing too few products, you have inflation.  In other words, if there is a fiat currency, you cannot simply keep printing money.  If the laws of economics are violated, there is a disastrous result.  If the laws of economics are properly followed, the end result is prosperity.  Liberals love to sin against the laws of economics and the end result is always poverty.


Nature has certain laws as well.  Most men and women want to form a family so they can create the next generation.  Destroy the incentive to create a family you end up with poverty and carnage.  Urban America is a classic example.  Government policy since 1965 has been to destroy the family in urban America. 


What is the result?  In urban America you have huge pockets of poverty.  In urban America you have an abundance of crime.  Single parenthood is the surest ticket to poverty for a family and for the male children of the single mother, the chances of becoming a prison statistic increase astronomically.


Liberalism as a sin is simply willfully violating the laws of God, man and nature. 


People instinctively understand that you do not steal from your neighbor, kill another human being or harm an unborn child.  Liberals sever their reality from the base that gives our existence stability.


Liberals take money from the targeted group and give it to the preferred group.  Liberals debase the currency so they can spend other people’s money.  Liberals have taken the language and twisted it apart from any meaning. 


Liberals are like Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."


Liberals are like Humpty Dumpty.  Tolerance means you must accept whatever they do.  Fairness means benefits for the preferred class at the cost of the class that is not preferred.  Equality means taking wealth or rights from one and giving it to another.


Conservatives joke about Barack Obama and his narcissism.  Yet, Obama is the ultimate expression of liberalism.  The liberal says behold I am the God of nature and nature’s laws, therefore  I am above nature’s laws.


Liberals believe they can do anything they want without the consequences of the laws of nature.  They will do things mere mortals consider to be immoral and do so with impunity.  They violate the laws of economics, liberty and nature. 


Unfortunately for the liberal there are far too often consequences. 


Tragically, time after time, we see it is not just the liberal who pays for the sins of his arrogance. 


The Bible says, “The wages of sin are death.”  Unfortunately for too many people, the wages of the sins of liberalism are poverty, tyranny and too often, mass murder.

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    Morry Markovitz

    Applause from me, Judson.    Call it sin if you like -- but here's an alternative perspective with about same bottom line:

    The laws of gravity, of economics, of chemistry, of proper and successful social organization (ie, governance of a society of HUMAN beings)  -- and the laws of nature generally, which include HUMAN nature, all have something in common:

    They are ALL examples of the laws of the universe we occupy.   They are ALL simply the FACTS about the nature of things, what they are and how they behave and interact.    The key  word here is FACTS.

    Given this, another way to describe liberalism, is that it is not exactly "sin," but a fanatical religious belief system  which places its faith in the wrong  "facts,"  ie NOT in the observed and understood and demonstrable factual nature of things in the real world that exists, but in the fantasy world they wish existed.

    This is, I believe, the ultimate hypocrisy of the liberals who demonize religion -- that THEY THEMSELVES are the most fanatical religious extremists on the planet (save possibly extremist Muslims, but it's a close call).

    Why do I say liberalism is a "religion" instead of  "belief system?"

    Because liberals even have their  own God.   Their god is government, the State with a capital S, just as God has his capital G.    

    When men are faced with a problem of just about any kind, the liberal SOLUTION is always the same:   turn it over to the State, to the government, and let the State solve it.   IE, the liberal believes -- whether he knows it explicitly or not --  that the State is OMNIPOTENT, the only  entity with the power to solve ANY and all problems

    (So I differ with Mr Lancilotti above -- Marxists ARE religious, and they DO have a god.).

    Furthermore, the liberal god called the State, is also OMNISCIENT.   It possesses the knowledge required to solve any problem.   And, in its infinite wisdom, the State KNOWS how to do EVERYTHING better than its mere mortal citizens do.    It knows what's best to eat, what  kind of cars to drive, what health care to have, what is best to be taught to all children, what materials are best to build houses with, etc, etc, ad nauseum.    We must all obey the laws handed down by  The Great Holy State, for The State knows better than any of us, about everything.

    This is the reason why liberals so characteristically avoid any questions about WHY they advocate what they do advocate.   Because they have no answer.    All they have is the same monotonous repetition of their fanatical belief in an all knowing, all powerful GOVERNMENT.   That is their AXIOM, which must never be questioned.    This is why they resort to  insult, innuendo, demonizing -- and violent demonstrations when others violate what THEIR BLIND FAITH IN A FANTASY UNIVERSE DEMANDS.   They are no different from any other super extreme believers who accept a set of "laws of nature" on faith, without due reference to nature herself.

    That is the metaphysics of the Liberal canon, if you can call such a simplistic, out of touch faith in a Walt Disney cartoon vision of the  world a "metaphysics."    How is it that such ignorant, childish pseudo-adults have made so much progress taking over the world?   That's a topic for another Blog, or many of them.

    What is the PSYCHOLOGY of a liberal?  What is REQUIRED in order for a human being to accept such self-contradictory nonsense?   [No space to lay the groundwork here for calling it self-contradictory, but liberal policies are riddled with self-contradictions as well as contradictions of nature's laws.  One example:   how can government be smarter than the citizenry, when government consists of a small subset drawn from the citizenry?]

    Well, that's a tricky question.   But we can know SOME aspects of a mind which is willing to believe contradictions and accept scads of slogans and policies on faith, or on someone else's say-so, or because everyone else they associate with says so.     They are people who, at some level, are afraid to face reality.   They are shivering cowards, "strangers and afraid, in a world they never made."  They need something to cling to, so they cling to each other and reassure each other that since they all believe the same thing, it must be right.     They are people who would rather go down with the ship together, than try to THINK of way to save themselves.

    There are, in VERY  broad terms, two types of human being:

    One sees that he is surrounded by a universe, and that his  task is to understand its nature, and use that understanding to solve the problem of his own survival in an often hostile universe.   This is the fact-oriented, independent thinker, who faces the world head on, and understands that FACTS must be accepted.   He understands that "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed," and thus he has determined his method for surviving.    This man is the achiever, with his potential limited only to the reach of his vision, and the breadth of his  understanding, and his willingness  to apply his understanding to achieve his vision.   All of mankind's great achievements come from such men.    His one need is the freedom to use his mind, and to act on its judgments.  This is the man whose character is based on the kind of values which historically have been regarded as American values.   He is often a business man, or a scientist or engineer, or a doctor, or a manual laborer who works to earn his  bread.  He is ambitious, and welcomes a challenge which offers an opportunity.

    The other is the man who shrinks from the effort of thinking, of having to face and solve .... PROBLEMS.    How unpleasant!!     And how is he to know what  to do, in such a strange and complex world?  He never asked for this!!   Why should he have to exert an effort he never requested or agreed to?    He's alive, and he deserves to live, he thinks -- the world owes him a living, something owes him a living, and neither anyone nor anything has a right to deprive him of his life, whether or not he exerts the effort to sustain it.    This fellow is afraid to face reality, afraid he will fail to understand it, and have to see himself as incompetent to survive.  And by avoiding reality, he condemns himself  to being UNABLE to understand it, thus reinforcing his own original cowardly  view of what life is and should be about.     This man attempts to understand AND DEAL WITH the real world THROUGH THE BUFFER OF OTHER MEN.    He values opinions more highly than facts, because he distrusts his own mind.    He is a weakling looking for someone who will tell him what to do.    He is a sheep, a liberal or socialist, demanding that the world provide him the living he's entitled to because  of having been born.    He knows, deep down, that he NEEDS men of the first type who are able to survive.    He tries to assert his "right" to TAKE, not to produce.     His ENTITLEMENT to such things as a "decent" wage, "decent" housing, "decent" food, etc etc.    And, sheep that he is, he NEEDS an authority to tell him what to do, and to help him get what he needs from the first type of man above.   He comes up with socialism or similar as the natural consequence of his view of the world.  He must protect himself from the knowledge that he is incompetent to survive, so he establishes socialism, which confirms his RIGHT to live, even without effort.    No one must be allowed to feel superior to him, or he might be reminded of his  own inferiority.   The men of the first type above must be put in their place, and understand that he has just as much right to live, and to live just as well, as they do.   Those other men must be told it's their DUTY to keep him alive too.   This is the man with UN-American, collectivist/authoritarian values.     This is the man who has rationalized a system which will enslave the producers so that he might live without the effort required to live.   This is the human parasite who will be drawn to jobs that offer security rather than opportunity, such as public school teacher, or tenured professor of political science, or government employee (preferably unionized).  He does everything he can to avoid challenges, and to use the existence of the first type of man above, to insulate him from having to address the problem of his own survival  -- the other man who will pay  the taxes which keep his bread on the table, without having to  get any dirt under his fingernails.

    It would be hard to find a perfect example of either type, but these are the two different essences of  human character.     Men like Ronald Reagan, Steve Jobs, Barry Goldwater,  Ludwig Von Mises, and the NASA engineers of its early days, come from the first group.   Men like Josef Stalin, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Adolf Hitler, and probably many of the professors of humanities in your local college come from the second group.

    I think I've gone a fair bit beyond the topic, and overindulged myself in the use of writing space.    I'd better cut things off here.   Hope some TPNers find this topic as interesting as I do.

    • up

      David Farrar

      Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

      By Kyle-Anne Shiver   May 12, 2009


      "Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic."...As Pope Benedict XVI


      "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have."... unknown author.

      BY Kyle-Anne Shiver:

      Be not fooled, America.  The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil.  It's a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn't change a thing.

      There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.

       Click here for more.

      ex animo


      • up

        David Farrar

        Natural Law and the Legitimate Authority of the United States -

        by David J. ShestokasMarch 15, 2013 

        Government needs a basis to exercise authority over people. Citizens must accept government authority.  A government lacking acceptance of the people over whom it exercises authority will not endure.  Such acceptance comes from fear, tradition or philosophy.

        Dictators obtain authority by instilling fear of disobedience in the populace. A theocracy ordained by God arises from religious traditions.  A monarchy combines religious traditions[1] and fear of the monarch’s absolute authority. Communists have gained power with a philosophy based upon the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.[2]  The United States was founded upon a philosophy of Natural Law as the source of legitimate legal authority for government


        Click here for more.

        [1] The Divine Right of Kings proposed that God worked His will to appoint the monarch.

        [2] Though communism and its proletarian dictatorship has been a philosophy employed to gain support for government change, history has shown that to maintain power, communist governments have had to become dictatorships and exercise authority by generating fear in the population.

        ex animo