The Government? Or Political Parties?

In the current issue of The Objective Standard (www.theobjectivestandard.com) Mr. Craig Biddle wrote an article about what the government has done to fight terrorism. He concludes that it has done precious little if anything at all. He blaims relativism and religion for the government's reluctance to go after the real perpetrators of terrorsim: Iran and Saudia Arabia. The article shows more depth than other Objective Standard articles. However, I take issue with two things Mr. Biddle included in his article (government and relativism) and one thing he didn't (worldwide revolution). Since it is key to his article Mr. Biddle should have defined the word "government". Government is the apparatus that political parties use to wield power. It is the political parties and more specifically the people in those parties that make the policies to which Mr. Biddle objects. Mr. Biddle needs to identify specific individuals that are culpable (the president? the speaker of the house?) then identify the cultural influences that guide them (relativism in the case of the president and religion in the case of the speaker of the house). The article's identification of relativism as a philosophy is in error. In reality relativism is a theory of conceit/pretense. Relativism is an offshoot of the theory of subjectivism. The theory of subjectivism claims that reality varies from person to person. Subjective reality is a contradiction in terms and Objective reality is redundant. There are only reality and non-reality (Aristotle's law of the excluded middle: everything is either A or non-A.). However, since it is possible for a person to reflect a relativistic attitude Mr. Biddle should identify the attitude as exactly that: relativistic. The ultimate aim of the political left is and always has been: Worldwide revolution ushering in Socialist paradise. The reason that so many on the left were slow to respond to 9-11 is because they assumed that this was the beginning of the revolution. (It is also why the left hates the term islamofacsism.) Both the right and the left in this country see the radical islamists as fellow travelers and while both hate the religious aspects of Islamic terrorists (the right because they are fundamentally christian and the left because they are fundamentally atheist) they love the revolutionary potential of the Taliban et. al. Both the political left and right would like to see a worldwide revolution. The only difference between the two is the outcome: socialst paradise vs. conservative paradise. - You're welcome

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Imprimis Article by Dr. Larry Arnn

I read with great interest the article in the December 2016 issue of Imprimis adapted from a speech given by Dr. Arnn titled "A More American Conservatism". Unfortunately Dr. Arnn fails to accurately define the concept "conservative" by attempting to define the term psychologically. Psychology is idealistic, emotional and therefore indefinite. Concepts are realistic, intellectual and therefore definitive. The better definit ion of the word "conservative" is "to make the presumption for the status quo". Making the presumption for the status quo is an intellectual, rather than psychological, exercise.  It is therefore a better definition than the one provided by Dr. Arnn in the Imprimis article.  The socialist is idealistic and idealism makes the presumption for change.  It makes the presumption for an "ideal" state, perfection.  Perfection is pluralistic and therefore imaginary. (It can only be implemented by manipulation, intimidatio...
Read more

Immigration

President Obama has signed and will continue to sign executive orders to "fix" our "broken" immigration system. The Republicans in congress have declared that they will fight the executive order "tooth and nail". Of course the Republicans are screwed. All efforts to resist the president will be seen as petulant and rightfully so. Many years ago the Republicans conceded the intellectual point by admitting that our immigration system is broken. As a consequence President Obama's actions look reasonable and rational by default. You're welcome.
Read more

John McEnroe Gets Baited

John McEnroe, world champion tennis player, was successfully baited by an idealistic interviewer a few days ago. One of the most often used traps employed by the political left is the "prove a negative" game in which the victim is baited into trying to prove a negative and when the victim fails he/she is ridiculed. When Mr. McEnroe told the interviewer that Serena Williams was the best woman's tennis player ever the interviewer baited him by asking him why not the best period? (Meaning regardless of gender) Unfortunately Mr. McEnroe took the bait and tried to prove "why not". He failed and was promptly ridiculed. Controversy ensued. What Mr. McEnroe should have done was make the presumption for the status quo and insist that the interviewer prove a positive i.e. "why" Ms. Williams is the best period.
Read more