|"E" rescripting God chapter and verse IMO. Psychologically speaking: The minimalist view.|
|Re: "Millennial ignoramuses for socialism" - Walter E. -- TEEBONE||Post Reply||Top of thread||Forum|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
Looking at anti-conservatism from a psychological POV instead of a rationalist, political one - it is possible to reduce things to a very basic appraisal.
In many (most) anti-conservative fanatics (including most hard-leftists) there is a sense that after all is said and done, acting as a counter-force to what they perceive to be the "conservative movement" is if nothing more, a check against one-sided power.
That view has legitimacy only if taken from the absolutist perspective (in open resistance to Okham's Razor*) which accepts the assumption that all ideologies, regardless of how moral their origins or doctrine, tend toward wickedness if unchecked by a counter-force.
That is of course an absurd view if one also accepts the reality that there are moral positions on things (including some political things) which should arguably never be challenged or change - such as the underlying principles that most civilized cultures have acknowledged through the ages.
One cannot be both for and against morality. One cannot love the good without also opposing the bad. So acting as a counter force to civilization is not a moral position. Counter-force then becomes corrosive, destructive and horrible.
Yet that latter truth escapes most leftists whose ideas I have come to understand. They seem to wish mostly to be all things to everyone at least in perception, then to assume power based on nothing more than the raw egotism of Satan.
'Crats say to themselves after much self-honoring, "It is a better universe if I and those like me (anti-conservative fanatics) are in charge". This idea-of-reference then becomes the fountain of psychosis from which all other anti-conservative fanatical evil then gushes forth.
* Okham's Razor is the principle which states: "The correct explanation is generally the one requiring the least number of assumptions to be true," IOW, "the simplest explanation is usually correct "
Modified by LateForLunch at Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 00:59:55
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Where am I? Original Top of thread||Previous | Next | Current page|