Sic et Non
FollowPatheos Mormon on:
A longish but extraordinarily interesting article excerpted from a new book by the British journalist Melanie Phillips:
Did you mean to link to her wiki article?
How about http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/Why-Left-hates-families-MELANIE-PHIILLIPS-reveals-selfish-sneers-Guardianistas-Left-actively-fosters–revels–family-breakdown-.html
Great article! Thank you for sharing! Here is the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/Why-Left-hates-families-MELANIE-PHIILLIPS-reveals-selfish-sneers-Guardianistas-Left-actively-fosters–revels–family-breakdown-.html
Sheesh. Premature senility can be so embarrassing. I’ve fixed the link problem. (I think!)
I think they make a pill for that condition. No need to be embarrassed.
“I always believed a good journalist should uphold truth over lies and follow the evidence where it led.
Trudging round godforsaken estates as the paper’s special reporter on
social affairs, I could see the stark reality of what our supposedly
enlightened liberal society was becoming.
The scales began to fall from my eyes. I came to realise that the Left was not on the side of truth, reason and justice.
Instead, it promoted ideology, malice and oppression. Rather than fighting abuse of power, it embodied it.”
The “Left” have nothing on the Grand Inquisitors.
If I could write a book in the genre of C.S.Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy”, I’d write one of the Left titled “Surprised by Dogma”.
It’s no longer a surprise, at least not when you finally wake up to them.
Good post. I gave you a rep point.
My only comment is that you could replace the word “liberal” with the word “conservative” and it would still be just as accurate.
There really is very little, if any difference at all between liberals and conservatives. It matters not who is in power. Things stay relatively the same.
Ron Paul made a very profound statement on how there is no difference between political parties:
“What happens if you come to the conclusion, as millions of Americans have, these parties aren’t different, they’re all the same. The monetary policy stays the same. The welfare system stays the same. The foreign policy stays the same. They get pretty disgusted. There is but one party.”
People really do need to wake up and disengage from the stupid, us versus them mentality in politics.
“People really do need to wake up and disengage from the stupid, us versus them mentality in politics.”
Your comment reminded me of a quote from Eugene England:
“I ask you to reject the labels of this previous generation that have
fragmented our intellectual community and to some extent the larger
Church—I mean labels like ‘orthodox’ and ‘unorthodox,’ ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.’ These are gentile terms and have no place in a community
of the Saints, if used to hold oneself apart and reject [p.74] others
from fellowship, love, and forgiveness.”
“Great Books or True Religion? Defining the Mormon Scholar”: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=534
Remarkable conversion story.
Phillips notes she “generally toed the standard Leftist line in the late Seventies and early Eighties,” which she describes as follows:
“Poverty was bad, cuts in public spending were bad, prison was bad, the Tory government was bad.
The state was good, poor people were good, minorities were good, sexual freedom was good.”
Come to find out, you see, had Phillips been in her right mind at the time, she would have generally toed the standard Tory line at the time, which was as follows:
Poverty is good, cuts in public spending are good, prison is good, the Tory government is good. The state is bad, poor people are bad, minorities are bad, sexual freedom is bad.
Phillips trades one dogmatic, black-and-white worldview for another. She went from believing that “Right-wingers represented the dark forces of human nature and society that we were all so proud to be against” to believing that “the Left was not on the side of truth, reason and justice. Instead, it promoted ideology, malice and oppression. Rather than fighting abuse of power, it embodied it.”
She may have been smirking when she wrote the following: “But I am not ideologically driven. I hate the way political debate has been polarised into warring camps, with each side circling its wagons and striking ever more inflexible, dogmatic and adversarial positions.”
Good thing she avoids falling into that nasty trap. She concludes:
“Our cultural and political elites have simply turned truth and justice inside out and, with argument replaced by insult and abuse, taken leave of reality itself. They have destroyed rational discourse, polarised opinion and thereby undermined the possibility of finding common ground.
The result is that there are two Britains — the first adhering to decency, rationality and duty to others, and the second characterised by hatred, rampant selfishness and a terrifying repudiation of reason.”
Who can doubt it?
“That’s because the banner behind which they march is not altruism, as they kid themselves. It is narcissism.”
I once heard a psychologist say that about 50% of our society has great difficulty in accepting responsibility (current trends would seem to support this). Narcissism seems to me to be a defense mechanism against personal responsibility and accountability. We live in great times where we can actually watch the narcissistic movement play out before our eyes. Will pure narcissism trump accountability and competence? We shall see.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.