CONSERVATIVE VIDEO (This is for Ed and John and all other senior Liberals–an apparent oxymoron–watch and learn why you think the way you do. JM)
Bill Whittle Interview with Evan Sayet: Understanding the Mind of the Liberal
Author Evan Sayet sits with Bill Whittle to discuss his book The Kindergarden of Eden. Sayet thinks that most liberals are neither stupid nor evil. So why do liberal policies so often produce stupid, if not evil results? Is it because liberalism promotes evil over the good? Find out on this interview with the very funny and insightful Evan Sayet.
CANADA FREE PRESS by JIM ONEILL
Modern Liberal, True Believer’s very purpose being the total destruction of everything that God and science–most obviously Western Civilization–has ever created
Liberal Treason Explained: “The Kindergarden of Eden”
||– Jim ONeill Monday, October 29, 2012|
“If they weren’t so dangerous and destructive, one could smile and pat the Modern Liberal on the head and tell him how cute he is and go on about the business of being an adult. But he is dangerous and destructive, with the True Believer’s very purpose being the total destruction of everything that God and science—most obviously Western Civilization—has ever created. …The Modern Liberal will invariably and, in fact, inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.”—Evan Sayet “The Kindergarden of Eden”
“There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative…. The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated.”—Allan Bloom “The Closing of the American Mind”
“Herbert Marcuse, the guru of the New Left of the 1960s, waged war on language by renaming intolerance as tolerance, violence as nonviolence, and dictatorship as democracy. Marcuse’s Newspeak led to the Left rationalizing censorship, acts of violence by radicals, and support of totalitarians like Castro or the Palestinian terrorists—all while claiming to advocate tolerance, non-violence, and democracy.”—Daniel Flynn “Intellectual Morons”
The main focus of this article is Evan Sayet’s book “The Kindergarden of Eden,“but in order to put it into proper context I will start by touching on some related material. Otherwise Sayet’s analysis of the liberal mindset might appear to some readers as being “over the top.“Unfortunately it is not.
Of all the harmful doctrines promulgated by liberals, perhaps none has been as devastating in its effects as relativism. Put simply, relativism is the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth—truth is relative—one person’s “truth”is no more or less valid than another person’s. Relativism has been incorporated into several insidious offshoots such as moral relativism, cultural relativism, deconstructionism, postmodernism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.
I would be more than happy to slice and dice the concept of relativism like a Cuisinart blender, but time will not allow for it at the moment. Suffice it for now to point out that one of the basal claims of relativism—“there are no absolutes”—is self-refuting. That is, if the axiom is right then it is wrong, for the statement itself is asserting an absolute.
Leftists will of course counter that argument with one of their own, and so on until you have boxed them into their ultimate fall-back position of nihilism—at which point they will tell you that words are meaningless, logic is senseless, science oppressive, and nothing matters. Why they do not just say that up front and spare us all the song and dance is beyond me—luring in the gullible I suppose.
(Sidebar: If you would like to delve into the subject in more depth, let me suggest the paper “Relativism”(available online) by Allen Wood, Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. Dr. Wood is more refined than I in his dialogue with relativists, e.g.: “If relativists say that this isn’t what they mean when they assert a proposition or say they believe it, then they are apparently using the terms “assert” and “believe” in a new and mysterious sense, which they apparently can’t explain. Until they do explain the meanings these words have for them, we can’t be sure what (if anything) they are really saying when their mouths make noises that sound (to us) like assertions of relativism”).
Moving right along, let me next touch on the decline and fall of American education—triggered in no small part by members of the Frankfurt School. Most readers are at least somewhat familiar with the Frankfurt School—that group of German Marxists who were welcomed into the United States during the Nazi’s rise to power in the 1930s. Members of the Frankfurt School repaid America’s largesse by stabbing her in the back and spreading an especially virulent form of anti-Americanism throughout US academia. Perhaps the most infectious carrier of their disease was Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979).
“Sex sells”is a well known advertising axiom, and Marcuse hit upon the diabolically clever stratagem of combining sex with soft-sell Marxism. In 1955 Marcuse published his book “Eros and Civilization,“which lit the fire that would erupt into “the sexual revolution”of the 1960s (aided and abetted by the bogus “scientific findings”of pervert extraordinaire Dr. Alfred Kinsey—“Marquis de Sade with a research team”as Selwyn Duke describes him).
“Eros and Civilization“popularized the concept of polymorphous perversity (a term coined by atheist and hater of Judeo/Christian tradition Sigmund Freud). Polymorphous perversity was put into the vernacular in the 1960s as “If it feels good do it.“Skillfully hidden within the “if it feels good do it”camouflage, Marcuse included anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, anti-American Marxist propaganda.
Polymorphous perversity leaves everything and anything of a sexual nature on the table—pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, you name it. Whatever floats your boat is considered tr√®s chic, and any opposition to such perversions is considered to be hopelessly retardataire, repressive and anti-revolutionary. “No discrimination”is the operative catch-phrase, and as Evan Sayet observes, “Once you subscribe to indiscriminateness everything else is the evil of having discriminated.”
And here we come to Evan Sayet’s book “The Kindergarden of Eden”and its surprising, even stunning, conclusions concerning the mindset of America’s modern liberal. Although Sayet has a background as a humorist, his description of modern liberalism is no joke. Andrew Breitbart described Sayet’s talk given at The Heritage Foundation in 2007 as “one of the five most important conservative speeches ever given.“The video of his speech (”How Liberals Think”) on YouTube has had over 600,000 views.
Sayet’s description of the modern liberal mindset is summarized in the quote that opened this article: “…the Modern Liberal will invariably and, in fact, inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.”
For those who know the history of the radical left in America and its infiltration and subsequent takeover of America’s educational system (via Roger Kimball’s “tenured radicals”), then Sayet’s observations are perhaps not that surprising, but to the bulk of “we the people”they will be startling indeed.
Most Americans are still unaware of the tremendous inroads that relativism and Marxist theory have made in our culture, and most conservatives have yet to hear of Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance“and remain unaware of its huge impact on liberal thought. In his essay Marcuse essentially makes the argument that being tolerant of anything but Marxist ideology is anti-revolutionary. In short, all conservative, freedom loving, capitalist, pro-American thought or speech is intolerable, and must be shut down, ridiculed, and banished whenever and wherever it is encountered—without exception. Say goodbye to free speech, and say hello to political correctness and the infamous liberal double standard.
This double standard mindset is most visible in the liberal media, whose water carrying for Obama continues apace with their lack of coverage on Benghazi-Gate. They would be digging up dirt like moles on meth if a conservative president was involved—yet they rarely mention the Obama Administration’s gun-running to radical Islamic enemies of the United States, or inquire into the possibility of Ambassador Stevens being set up for a Blind Sheik/Stevens hostage exchange. (The hostage scenario is, of course, only a possibility, but I do believe it is a possibility that should be investigated).
The “tenured radicals”who infiltrated academia in ever increasing numbers after the 1960s promoted Marxist teachings that, when not dealing in outright lies and slander, twisted the truth to present a one-sided and unremittingly negative, ugly, and misleading portrait of America (although preferring lies and half-truths; the truth would serve if it was unflattering).
As a result of the influx of Godless Marxism and an indoctrinated fondness for relativism and egalitarianism, eventually the liberal mindset underwent a “Luciferian inversion,“and what was good became bad, and what was bad became good. The regressive Progressives were not exactly exploring new ground with any of this: “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”(Isaiah 5:20)
Ideally, what “we the people”should be using are neither the c—p colored glasses of Critical Theory, nor the rose tinted glasses of undiscerning nationalism, but the clear lenses of ideologically-free perception. Imagine.
In any event, what we have in place today is a culture, media, and government that are lopsidedly liberal, so it behooves “we the people”to understand just what that means. It turns out, unfortunately, that “just what that means”is an America largely controlled by people with a liberal mindset that is decidedly anti-American—treasonous in effect.
They believe that America is, and has been, too successful—bad America! They seem to have no difficulty in considering success to be personally desirable, but bad for the United States as a whole. They are, for all practical purposes, American traitors who have been so subtly, thoroughly, effectively brainwashed that they remain largely unaware of their treasonous nature, and even think of themselves as doing good, and being good. “The road to hell is paved with…,“and all that.
Evan Sayet is of the opinion that most liberals are neither stupid, nor evil—a viewpoint that is, I grant you, debatable. Be that as it may, I would also add that most liberals probably do not have any great knowledge of Marxist theory, and would not know the difference between a Hegelian dialectic and an apple strudel—nor are they typically aware of how they have been manipulated to further the agenda of an international cabal intent on installing a global elite to rule over “we the people.“Those who experienced the disdainful hubris of the historically venal, inept, and treasonous 111th US Congress now have some idea of what to expect from such a global oligarchy.
My point here is that liberals are typically unaware of the radical roots and back-story of their beliefs, and accept the attitudes that they have been indoctrinated with as being “common wisdom.“One of Sayet’s leitmotifs is that liberals are frozen in a permanent state of arrested development—at the age of five to be exact (the age when the “educational”system generally first gets a hold of them). In Sayet’s words: “The beliefs held by the Democrats are so ludicrous that…it’s impossible to be a Democrat and not to have been morally and intellectually retarded at the level of a five-year-old child.”
Thomas Sowell has termed the ones who come up with the liberal’s marching orders “intellectuals,“and the ones who disseminate the intellectual’s ideas the “intelligentsia.“At the bottom of the pyramid, comprising the vast bulk of liberaldom are the “useful idiots”(not Mr. Sowell’s term) who receive their cues on what to think and how to behave from various propaganda outlets such as NPR, “The New York Times,”“The LA Times,”“MSNBC,“etc. Peer pressure, the herd instinct, pats on the back, continuous indoctrination, and the fear of being shunned/ridiculed keep “the faithful”from straying too far from the party line.
Sayet groups liberals into what he terms “True Believers”(intellectuals, intelligentsia) and “Foot Soldiers”(useful idiots), and knows whereof he speaks. He is a long‚Äìtime insider of the Hollywood milieu, and worked for a period as a writer for “comedian”Bill Maher. He describes himself as being raised “a typical New York City-born, middle class Jew. My liberalism wasn’t doctrinaire, it was simply (as Breitbart would put it) ‘the default factory setting’ for someone of those demographics. I knew what I needed to know about politics and it was this: Democrats are good—Republicans are evil. Democrats like peace—Republicans like war, Democrats like air—Republicans don’t breathe (or something like that).”
What turned Sayet away from liberalism was 9/11—specifically the liberal reaction to it. The often lukewarm patriotism, or at worst, straight out anti-Americanism displayed by liberals after 9/11 got Sayet to thinking—and thinking can be a very dangerous thing for a liberal to indulge in. As Sayet notes, ““The first time you think is the last time you’re a Democrat.” So what does motivate liberals according to Sayet?
Sayet says that what drives the liberal True Believer is a Godless utopian vision, summed up nicely in John Lennon’s song/anthem “Imagine”—no heaven, no hell, no religion, no countries, no possessions, “nothing to kill or die for”(no right, no wrong), no past, no future (“all the people living for today”).
(Sidebar: It should be noted that John Lennon changed as he grew older and matured (as any honest and open minded person will). In his last interview he made the wise observation that “The hardest thing is facing yourself. It’s easier to shout ‘Revolution’ and ‘Power to the people’ than it is to look at yourself and try to find out what’s real inside you and what isn’t, when you’re pulling the wool over your own eyes.“Rest in peace John).
According to Sayet, in order to bring about this “utopian”vision the True Believer feels that it is necessary to (1) elevate evil, and (2) denigrate that which is good. Only in this way can true equality be achieved. In other words the liberal True Believer is actively opposed to that which Western civilization has historically held in high esteem—truth, honor, God, integrity, courage, responsibility, peace, patriotism, freedom, etc.—and believes in actively promoting their opposites. They see this as the only way to level the playing field; ensuring equality for all.
Is it possible that Sayet is correct—does the liberal agenda ultimately result in such malevolent idiocy? If you connect the dots between Marx, the Frankfurt School, relativism, Herbert Marcuse and all the rest of the liberal baggage, then I am afraid that it is not only possible, but it is, as Sayet says, inevitable. We can see the results all about us.
How do you compromise with such people? Why would you compromise with such people?
I do not want to steal Sayet’s thunder, so to speak, so I will end my article here. I definitely recommend his book, which is available online (evansayet.com) as an ebook PDF and in hard-copy. I leave you with some final thoughts from “The Kindergarden of Eden.”
In its simplest form, the culture war is a war being waged by the people who don’t do anything against the people who do everything….For the first part of the Modern Liberal era, the abject stupidity of the permanently infantilized could be absorbed…. So long as there were a sufficient number of people of God and science doing things and making things, these Modern Liberals could remain forever like Adam and Eve in Eden, or a child in a kindergarten playground….So long as there were people of God and science who could provide for him when he couldn’t provide for himself, he was sure to be safe and comfortable just being himself and doing whatever feels good. Today we are at a tipping point where the people of God and science will soon be overwhelmed by the demands of taking care of the permanently infantilized. It is unsustainable.
CONSERVATIVE READ by JOHN HAWKINS
John Hawkins: 5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves
Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor — that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don’t work, but you can’t help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people’s money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely.
1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, “Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution.” The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in non-drug-using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.
2) Liberals care about education: If you define “education” as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don’t care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there’s a divergence between what’s best for the teachers’ unions and what’s best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.
3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don’t understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian “Fairness Act.” They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That’s not open-minded; it’s a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.
4) Liberals don’t moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they’re moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term “fair share” if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don’t moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.
5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin’s words of wisdom,
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
On the other hand, liberals “love” the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who’re claiming the destitute can have better lives when any “compassionate” person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That’s not love; that’s a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News
Share the post “John Hawkins: 5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves”
- Liberal Treason Explained: “The Kindergarden of Eden” (canadafreepress.com)
- John Hawkins: 5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves (conservativeread.com)
- The KinderGarden of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks (And Why He’s Convinced That Ignorance is Bliss) (lukeford.net)
- Sunday Stupor: December 16, 2012 (petchary.wordpress.com)
No comments yet.