Tapsearch Com EditorLiberals not liberal - part 2 (LINK)
August 19th 2008 18:21
By Ray Tapajna - this continues our study of liberalism and its real meaning and effects To review first post click on Part 1 of Liberals not liberal
" Protest " and a majority down to one person rule of the destiny of life itself and potential life
Liberals today would scarely recognize the decription of liberalism we gave in part one.
Today, the social order is a puzzle of different concepts and ideas. The concepts of freedom are as diverse as the number of individuals with different choices. As a result the social order is unpredictable, for it is an order which is the sum of many individuals with varying degrees of thoughts and practices. Experimentation rules out continuing social order. And dogma, tradition, proven historic facts and functionalism will take the place of human dignity which was once held strongly together by absolutes.
Most liberals say there are no absolutes which is a contradiction of terms because in their definition they state an absolute. Liberalism can be best characterized as an abandonment of absolutes. Liberalism takes on a new dynamic opposition to a constant social order. Liberty of singular and individuals "absolutes" take over. All thoughts and institutions are reoriented to this process.
The story of liberalism is a long one. When people like Luther rejected authority of the Church he belonged to, all the delegation of authority was affected. Natural law and positive law lost their priority and place in the social order. Once, the "right to protest" came before other constants in the social order and "protest" became the order which really is not any order in a society. People always seek a philosophy of life for the sake of some degree of peace but it is difficult when "protest" is the leading agent.
Chesterson says it is not the evils in the world that destroy the social order but it is good people with good intent seeking good things in bad ways. Kant came along and made men feel truth was really unattainable. One man may be as right as another man. This is what backs the concept of Free Choice in the termination of a third party who still lacks the power to voice their choice. In the end power rules. It is power that governs the choice with the weaker power being at the mercy of the stronger one. It is truly a survival of the fittest scenario.
Liberals today will do anything to keep "protest" as a priority. The absolute sovereignty of the individual - in many cases as desribed above - the sovereignty rests with the one with the most power. In many cases, this power is intellectual where elite groupings know what is best for the rest of society. As an advocate for human dignity in the work day, we see elite groupings now controlling the workday. In politics, universities, like Harvard control what others should think. It is actually opposite of liberalism but again the rules of liberalism vary too depending on who controls the most power in choices in any field. The absolute sovereignty of civil power rests in the hands of the majority no matter how small that majority is.
President Clinton won the presidency the first time with less than 20 percent of all possible votes. Liberalism shut the door to the real majority. There is a vast group of people now that are in the "unnetted" grouping who really have no voice in their destinies. And we will never understand how a minority group like the blacks still vote for liberal candidates while the black community still is not sharing in the American Dream. Reportedly more than 50 percent of black men in the inner cities are unemployed. This fact is hidden in a liberal world. As long as "protest" is the top tool of liberals, situations like this will not change. Today we have no objective philosophy. Philosophy seems to be a continuous review of "protests" to an evolution of thought against real philosophy. We end up with a President who says Jesus was his favorite philosopher even though Jesus was never a philosopher because philosophy is base on the study of being as being and Jesus claimed to be all being. He can be the object of philosophical studies but he can not be defined as a philosopher himself. He claimed to be God and Faith completed.
We will continue to our essay on liberals not really being liberal in part 3
" Protest " and a majority down to one person rule of the destiny of life itself and potential life
Liberals today would scarely recognize the decription of liberalism we gave in part one.
Today, the social order is a puzzle of different concepts and ideas. The concepts of freedom are as diverse as the number of individuals with different choices. As a result the social order is unpredictable, for it is an order which is the sum of many individuals with varying degrees of thoughts and practices. Experimentation rules out continuing social order. And dogma, tradition, proven historic facts and functionalism will take the place of human dignity which was once held strongly together by absolutes.
Most liberals say there are no absolutes which is a contradiction of terms because in their definition they state an absolute. Liberalism can be best characterized as an abandonment of absolutes. Liberalism takes on a new dynamic opposition to a constant social order. Liberty of singular and individuals "absolutes" take over. All thoughts and institutions are reoriented to this process.
The story of liberalism is a long one. When people like Luther rejected authority of the Church he belonged to, all the delegation of authority was affected. Natural law and positive law lost their priority and place in the social order. Once, the "right to protest" came before other constants in the social order and "protest" became the order which really is not any order in a society. People always seek a philosophy of life for the sake of some degree of peace but it is difficult when "protest" is the leading agent.
Chesterson says it is not the evils in the world that destroy the social order but it is good people with good intent seeking good things in bad ways. Kant came along and made men feel truth was really unattainable. One man may be as right as another man. This is what backs the concept of Free Choice in the termination of a third party who still lacks the power to voice their choice. In the end power rules. It is power that governs the choice with the weaker power being at the mercy of the stronger one. It is truly a survival of the fittest scenario.
Liberals today will do anything to keep "protest" as a priority. The absolute sovereignty of the individual - in many cases as desribed above - the sovereignty rests with the one with the most power. In many cases, this power is intellectual where elite groupings know what is best for the rest of society. As an advocate for human dignity in the work day, we see elite groupings now controlling the workday. In politics, universities, like Harvard control what others should think. It is actually opposite of liberalism but again the rules of liberalism vary too depending on who controls the most power in choices in any field. The absolute sovereignty of civil power rests in the hands of the majority no matter how small that majority is.
President Clinton won the presidency the first time with less than 20 percent of all possible votes. Liberalism shut the door to the real majority. There is a vast group of people now that are in the "unnetted" grouping who really have no voice in their destinies. And we will never understand how a minority group like the blacks still vote for liberal candidates while the black community still is not sharing in the American Dream. Reportedly more than 50 percent of black men in the inner cities are unemployed. This fact is hidden in a liberal world. As long as "protest" is the top tool of liberals, situations like this will not change. Today we have no objective philosophy. Philosophy seems to be a continuous review of "protests" to an evolution of thought against real philosophy. We end up with a President who says Jesus was his favorite philosopher even though Jesus was never a philosopher because philosophy is base on the study of being as being and Jesus claimed to be all being. He can be the object of philosophical studies but he can not be defined as a philosopher himself. He claimed to be God and Faith completed.
We will continue to our essay on liberals not really being liberal in part 3
| 48 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
