ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
One thing any reasonable individual of conservative opinion will discern from the average debate with the liberally inclined is that liberal arguments are chock full of sentimentality. Any argument at all will eventually lead to denial on the behalf of the liberal socialist and befuddlement on behalf of the reasonable individual.
The liberal reaction to even the most empirical suggestion is always one of subjective judgment, of judging how things ought to be as opposed to how they are. Liberal socialists are marked by idealism, and so are the thoughts which they often produce. That is why it is often difficult to argue with the liberal: because he cannot think in empirical terms when it is absolutely necessary, his inferences are often contaminated by sentimentality.
By itself sentimentality is not a bad thing; one can think of many circumstances under which it produces good moments. But when it is applied to very important issues such as the way people will live their lives, it is almost always a bad thing. For in this case it often leads to all efforts being directed at pleasing the masses, and the masses are almost never a good judge of what is in the common good, especially when the they are numerous and diverse in opinion.
The foundation upon which almost all liberal socialist ideology is based rests upon the assumption that all are born equal. By extension of this it is inferred that all should share equally in the fruits of society: none are to be granted favor whether it is deserved or not, and none are to be subjected to maltreatment whether of their own making or of an external nature. This argument, which has today virtually developed into a religion among the masses, can hardly be called an empirical one. History has demonstrated repeatedly that it is not true, and the biological sciences have been right behind practically begging for our attention.
Any observant man can surmise quite easily that inequalities exist between men. In fact, no matter the system employed to regulate equality, inequalities have always found a way in which to manifest themselves among men. It is almost a natural process. In fact, that is exactly what it is: a natural process. There has always been the elite and there has always been the poor --- in each and every society that has ever existed. Every form of government short of anarchy has always provided for the maintenence of an elite and the eventuality of the poor.
But the liberal socialist will say it is the impoverished environment that leads to the perpetuation of poverty. Since all men are born equal, but not every man can be guaranteed a share in the fruits of society (thus being in a state of poverty), deprivation will rob a man of his equality since equality will be judged by the accumulation of the fruits of society. This argument we are expected to believe despite the glaring fallacy.
The reasonable man might suggest that poverty is more than just being without the fruits of society (money, property, social status, whatever they may be in a particular society). Thus there is such a thing as intellectual poverty and poverty of potential. Being without possession of these things is enough to virtually guarantee a man a life of poverty. Again, history has shown that though a man might be poor in money, property, or status, if he possesses intellect and potential he can overcome poverty. History has also shown that if a man does not possess these crucial advantages, he may not overcome poverty unless money, property, and status is given to him for no other reason than his impoverished state. That is not to say, however, that a poor man (in the sense of wealth) might be necessarily inferior or that a rich man might be necessarily superior.
The reasonable man might now ask, "How can we determine who possesses intellect and potential? And cannot even those people who possess these things be morally impoverished?" This is clearly a question of virtue, not exactly in terms of what is morally right but what is morally right for the society. One might as well ask, "How do we determine who possesses virtue?" Any man that has intellect, potential, and does what is good for the society is a man that possesses virtue. For a man that has all these things, and does what is good for his fellow men, does good for himself and he is a good man. In other words, it is a man's actions that determines for us whether he has virtue or not.
The liberal socialist might now ask, "Isn't making all men equal doing what is best for all men since inequality is injustice towards men?" It is not what is doing best for all men. Creating equality where it does not exist is to stifle the natural process of our evolution since it robs the superior man of developing his potential and it credits the inferior man with potential he does not have.
But these things the liberal socialist refuses to acknowledge. His concern is one of idealistic fantasies, one of dreams. He looks ahead to the day when men may indeed be equal because all inequalities have been made extinct by the hand of nature, the way it seems to have done in so many other species. He naturally thinks that if we enforce equality now we will have reached that potential, or we may reach it sooner than we will have otherwise. He thinks this without considering for one moment that if equality is to be our future, and it may be, it will come about only as a result of a natural process and not one forced by the hand of man. For now inequalities exist, and there isn't anything we can do about it short of committing ourselves wholeheartedly to the principles of eugenics for the next one-thousand years.
Thus, in exposing the fallacies of liberal socialist thinking we have unraveled the great mystery of the liberal socialist. He is a sentimental idealist.
By Ben Cameron
http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/Viewpts/libsoc.html
The liberal reaction to even the most empirical suggestion is always one of subjective judgment, of judging how things ought to be as opposed to how they are. Liberal socialists are marked by idealism, and so are the thoughts which they often produce. That is why it is often difficult to argue with the liberal: because he cannot think in empirical terms when it is absolutely necessary, his inferences are often contaminated by sentimentality.
By itself sentimentality is not a bad thing; one can think of many circumstances under which it produces good moments. But when it is applied to very important issues such as the way people will live their lives, it is almost always a bad thing. For in this case it often leads to all efforts being directed at pleasing the masses, and the masses are almost never a good judge of what is in the common good, especially when the they are numerous and diverse in opinion.
The foundation upon which almost all liberal socialist ideology is based rests upon the assumption that all are born equal. By extension of this it is inferred that all should share equally in the fruits of society: none are to be granted favor whether it is deserved or not, and none are to be subjected to maltreatment whether of their own making or of an external nature. This argument, which has today virtually developed into a religion among the masses, can hardly be called an empirical one. History has demonstrated repeatedly that it is not true, and the biological sciences have been right behind practically begging for our attention.
Any observant man can surmise quite easily that inequalities exist between men. In fact, no matter the system employed to regulate equality, inequalities have always found a way in which to manifest themselves among men. It is almost a natural process. In fact, that is exactly what it is: a natural process. There has always been the elite and there has always been the poor --- in each and every society that has ever existed. Every form of government short of anarchy has always provided for the maintenence of an elite and the eventuality of the poor.
But the liberal socialist will say it is the impoverished environment that leads to the perpetuation of poverty. Since all men are born equal, but not every man can be guaranteed a share in the fruits of society (thus being in a state of poverty), deprivation will rob a man of his equality since equality will be judged by the accumulation of the fruits of society. This argument we are expected to believe despite the glaring fallacy.
The reasonable man might suggest that poverty is more than just being without the fruits of society (money, property, social status, whatever they may be in a particular society). Thus there is such a thing as intellectual poverty and poverty of potential. Being without possession of these things is enough to virtually guarantee a man a life of poverty. Again, history has shown that though a man might be poor in money, property, or status, if he possesses intellect and potential he can overcome poverty. History has also shown that if a man does not possess these crucial advantages, he may not overcome poverty unless money, property, and status is given to him for no other reason than his impoverished state. That is not to say, however, that a poor man (in the sense of wealth) might be necessarily inferior or that a rich man might be necessarily superior.
The reasonable man might now ask, "How can we determine who possesses intellect and potential? And cannot even those people who possess these things be morally impoverished?" This is clearly a question of virtue, not exactly in terms of what is morally right but what is morally right for the society. One might as well ask, "How do we determine who possesses virtue?" Any man that has intellect, potential, and does what is good for the society is a man that possesses virtue. For a man that has all these things, and does what is good for his fellow men, does good for himself and he is a good man. In other words, it is a man's actions that determines for us whether he has virtue or not.
The liberal socialist might now ask, "Isn't making all men equal doing what is best for all men since inequality is injustice towards men?" It is not what is doing best for all men. Creating equality where it does not exist is to stifle the natural process of our evolution since it robs the superior man of developing his potential and it credits the inferior man with potential he does not have.
But these things the liberal socialist refuses to acknowledge. His concern is one of idealistic fantasies, one of dreams. He looks ahead to the day when men may indeed be equal because all inequalities have been made extinct by the hand of nature, the way it seems to have done in so many other species. He naturally thinks that if we enforce equality now we will have reached that potential, or we may reach it sooner than we will have otherwise. He thinks this without considering for one moment that if equality is to be our future, and it may be, it will come about only as a result of a natural process and not one forced by the hand of man. For now inequalities exist, and there isn't anything we can do about it short of committing ourselves wholeheartedly to the principles of eugenics for the next one-thousand years.
Thus, in exposing the fallacies of liberal socialist thinking we have unraveled the great mystery of the liberal socialist. He is a sentimental idealist.
By Ben Cameron
http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/Viewpts/libsoc.html
