26. September 2010 by admin.

One of the major insults the Left enjoys throwing at conservatives is that we’re xenophobic.  Every time the question of amnesty, border control, assimilation, and immigration is raised, it seems the Democrats (and even some high-ranking Republicans) go for the throat, loudly proclaiming that our only reason for serious immigration reform is a deeply-rooted racism, a fear and hatred of other cultures–especially brown and black ones–and a selfishness which keeps us from embracing the poor.  Unfortunately, this packs quite an emotional punch: much of the active American public are quick to take action against conservatives solely based upon this concept.

But before addressing the concept of conservative xenophobia, we need to have a clear understanding of Leftism.  According to Dictionary.com, Leftism is “A descriptive term for liberal, radical, or revolutionary political views, particularly the view that there are unacceptable social inequalities in the present order of society.  Communists and socialists, as well as moderate liberals, come under the term left-wing.”  In totality, and especially in regard to the issue of massive and illegal immigration, Leftists are concerned that the welfare of non-citizens is sub-par, and so Leftists want to allow them access to the wealth and political power of our United States.  It is this redistributionary stance regarding wealth and power that makes the Leftist a Leftist, and differs sharply from a conservative viewpoint on immigration, which values the immigrant solely based upon their contribution to the American dream by becoming a true-blooded American. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in multiculturalism, immigration, philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

25. September 2010 by admin.

I’ve got some confessing to do.  I’ve woken up this morning with a broken heart, and I can’t shake it because I’m not supposed to.

I am a selfish, lazy man.   I know the world is a big place, and that technological advances in communication make us aware of all kinds of problems local and global, and I know that I can’t fix everything, and I know that because of this, some form of emotional callousness should be expected and allowable.  I can’t exactly afford an emotional breakdown every time an earthquake happens in Haiti (sounds bad, I know, but Haiti is still a disaster after all the money we sent), and I can’t go wearing a green ribbon every time some Iranian gets bulldozed by their government.   There’s just too much going on, too much to do, people are too far away, and the world’s got too much to complain about. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

20. September 2010 by admin.

This week, I had the pleasure of watching Ron “The Hedgehog” Jeremy debate a conservative on MSNBC regarding a new anti-pederasty bill.  Supposedly, the bill intended to create a national registry of porn stars for the purpose of ensuring the legal age of all porn stars, so that nobody could be paid to have sex before they turned 18–like infamous porn star Tracy Lords was.  And yes: suddenly self-righteous Americans were dumb enough to bring the first amendment into the issue, because they actually believe that making porn is speech.

But here’s a novel argument, brought to you by logic.  You may have learned how to do this in eighth grade geometry class. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in sex, philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

19. September 2010 by admin.

It’s no secret that most of the secular public enjoys labeling Christians (serious Christians, anyway) as irrational, backward, and dangerous.  Ever since the Enlightenment, humanity has increasingly become its own god, replacing the West’s foundational religion, Christianity, with reason.  Supposedly, this transfer of sanctity is supposed to beget a golden age of unprecedented civility and creativity, unhindered by the archaic bondage of religion, progressing our species into a liberated utopia in which every man would be his own king.  But secular rationalists–meaning, those who rely on mankind’s rationality as the sole source of morality and social advancement–are not being fair: under their own standards of humanist evolution, even the process of secular rationality fails to achieve its own goals. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in multiculturalism, natural law and rights, worldview, philosophy, Theology | Print | 5 Comments »

14. September 2010 by admin.

As it was intended, capitalism was to be the most liberating form of capital exchange in existence.  With the government leaving most forms of coercion out of the buying process (except in the prohibition of vices and other immoral/dangerous transactions), the value of products and labor was to be determined by the people, prices set not by an official with the threat of violence or monopoly of an entire supply, but by free peoples acting with their own money, determining exactly how much something was to be worth, and whether or not prices would have to be lowered or raised.  Supply and demand–the peoples’ wallets and the democratic votes which they theoretically represented–would guide the market into full production and a new kind of populism, one which rewarded those who benefited their customers most, spurning entrepreneurs who failed to live up to standards of public satisfaction. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | No Comments »

10. September 2010 by admin.

Most of the secular West has recently abandoned the concept of divine instruction, preferring the raw power of the human mind over Judeo-Christian moral code and its inflexible (unalienable, some might even say) system of human rights.  But if we’re at all fair, we’ll recognize that rationalism–meaning, the reliance on mankind’s rationality as the sole source of morality and social advancement–has some serious downsides, even according to its own standards.

First off, rationalism makes the assumption that human beings are eventually going to reach a greatly advanced (or even perfect) system of social and moral evolution, in which the human race will achieve an optimum harmony, which we’ll most likely reach through trial and error.  But this stance assumes too much of humanity: first, that human beings always remember all information, or that if they don’t, they’ll recognize correct information when they see it.  Information is important, because it precedes successful decisions, and its absence from the human thinking process threatens us not only with error, but also with social regression.  But we know that humans aren’t omniscient, which is one of the reasons that history tends to repeat itself.  And besides the fact that human beings aren’t always working with a full toolbox, we can’t assume that humans are going to accept useful information when it’s right in front of them.  After all, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

5. September 2010 by admin.

Most Leftists enjoy thinking of themselves as color-blind philanthropists, hell-bent on erasing bigotry from the public mind, bringing every racial category into economic harmony and uniting every culture in a sort of tolerant, egalitarian utopia.  But is this self-assessment true?

In order to be truly multicultural, one has to have a tolerant approach to all other cultures, since–coming from a postmodern, atheistic perspective–there can be no right or wrong culture, and we all have to live peacefully with one another.  But while most Leftists are increasingly tolerant with foreign cultures, their tendency toward domestic bigotry yields the assumption that multiculturalism is not truly multicultural, but is laden with racially-based tendencies.

For instance, the concept of tolerance first necessitates an “us” and a “them.”  Without this concept of “us and them,” there exists no standard of behavior for tolerance and generosity, since we would be incapable of defining who requires a more understanding and benevolent approach.  After all, when you are aware that someone has a different culture than you do, you should theoretically approach them as though there will be some misunderstandings, and as though you have an increased need to be patient and accepting. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics, cultural/racial | Print | 1 Comment »