This is a description of the philosophy of "moral relativism." This philosophy is the backbone of todays left who support Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. It has so much hypocrisy in it that it fails to qualify as any sort of intelligent stream of thought. The writing is from www.laissez-fairepublic.com
"Liberals" and the Cult of Moral Relativism
Beyond the myths and fallacies of socialism, Keynesianism, and regulatory welfare statism, and beyond the junk science of fraudulent sham environmentalism, and beyond the rotten philosophical and ethical underpinnings of leftism, when it comes to basic motivations and the attitudes that drive the left-wing mindset, one will look in vain for a non-psychological explanation -- and one does not have to be a trained psychologist to be able to discern the whim-worshipping, power-lusting infantile complex that underlies leftism and its hatred for private property, capitalism, freedom, humankind, the United States, and non-arbitrary morality.
One reason dizzy liberals hate and fear principled freedom advocates so much is that we individualists often render value judgments -- and when the Liberal Mentality hears someone render a value judgment with which the "liberal" disagrees, the liberal wants to pretend that the value judgment is "invalid" because "there are never any absolutes" (a statement which, if true, is self-contradictory and therefore false). So, when a rational individualist renders a value judgement that a liberal doesn't like, the liberal often tries to attack ALL value judgements as invalid rather than dealing with the specific issue at hand -- and sometimes even accuses the principled individualist of wanting to "legislate morality" or somehow forcibly impose his moral judgement on him!
For example, if the rational individualist claims that using heroin and cocaine can be addictive and is bad for one's health, the liberal relativist reacts very defensively and with barely suppressed guilt symptoms, perhaps even petulantly stamping his or her foot in indignation and screeching something like "What right do you have to impose your moral judgements on me or other people! I have a right to do what I want!"
Notice that the rational individualist has in no way used force, either personal or political, to impose his views on the "liberal" or anyone else -- nor has he advocated using the force of political legislation to impose his observations about private personal behavior or anyone; but, the "liberal" -- almost always intellectually dishonest to the core -- wants to try to get away with portraying those who express moral sentiments as somehow threatening to impose their morality on others.
What the "liberal" really feels threatened by is not legislation but the idea that the morality of human behavior might not be arbitrary and subjective but based on rational principles and on absolute standards which if ignored could affect his life and happiness.
(Of course this same liberal sees nothing wrong or hypocritical with him using Big Government to impose his notions of morality on other people -- from compulsory school attendance laws, forced bussing of school children, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative Action, compulsory seat belts, FDA restrictions on what vitamins you can take, laws against "quack" cancer cures, compulsory Social Security taxes, restrictions on using one's own land, antitrust laws, income taxes, price controls, and many other coercive interventions against peoples' freedom to engage in capitalist acts among consenting adults.)
The irony is that ONLY in a free society -- a society in which government is restricted by a policy of Laissez Faire -- are (adult) individuals recognized as responsible human beings who are free (from coercive interference) to do with their own bodies and properties whatever they want as long as they do not violate (through coercive interference) the same right of other adult citizens to do what they want with their own bodies and properties. This INCLUDES the freedom to do some things the rational individualist himself may disapprove of, such as self-mutilation, using LSD or heroin, putting gerbils up ones rectum, eating banana peels, drilling holes in the top of ones skull, sniffing glue, watching Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera, or reading Newsweek magazine.
Under the Laissez-Faire Republic which we advocate, people would be free to perform immoral follies on up to and including suicide -- as long as such actions do not involve the initiation of the use of coercive force in violation of the rights of others to their own persons and properties. Under freedom, ALL citizens' rights to person and property would be recognized, respected, and defended by law, including that of the "liberals" as well -- but not JUST the freedom of "liberals" to indulge in their own whims. The law would also protect the freedom of other people to disagree with the "liberals" and even the freedom of speech and of press to express disapproval of the immoral personal behaviors or foolish practices that are condoned and championed by the "liberals" and other moral relativists. It is this freedom -- the freedom to disagree with and disapprove of their pet vices and social programs -- that enrages "liberals" so much -- and why the "liberal"-left has sought to suppress any and all dissent and disagreement with its agenda by using its fascistic program of "political correctness" on college campuses and in the kept media. Their goal is to stamp out all publicly expressed views contrary to their own -- and especially those that reject epistemological and moral relativism in favor of rational standards and absolute principles and values.
The implicit reason that liberal relativists want to try to pretend that "there are no absolutes" or that morality is "relative" is that they want to reject any and all PRINCIPLES as such -- not just political legislation imposed by the power of the state, but also any NON- IMPOSED rules dealing with good conduct and bad habits to avoid. They want to be able to flaunt their vices & follies publicly while imposing a gag on anyone who would dare call their behavior "immoral" or foolish or imply that there could be any rational, absolute standards for behavior beyond their own personal whims or momentary feelings. They want the "luxury" of pretending that any and all chosen behavior has no consequences, no relevance one way or another to human life and morality. They want to replace rational principle with their own arbitrary whims. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster, both in the life of an individual and in the course of a nation.
The advance of human progress and civilization has been the result of the discovery, recognition, and implementation of sound principles and the abandonment of the arbitrariness of whim and the irrationality of superstition. By their vehement rejection of rational principles and absolute standards, today's left-wingers and "liberals" have abandoned progress and civilization and true science in favor of their own mystic religious cult, no longer pretending (as did Marx) that their socialism is "scientific" and rational.
Beyond that, it must be kept in mind that relativism in the areas of truth and morals necessarily leads to absolute tyranny in politics. If reality is seen as subjective and relative, that is, if reason is abandoned, then reality can no longer serve as an independent frame of reference or common ground by which disputes may be resolved, so that the only other way disputes can be dealt with is by brute force -- might makes right. Thus, the relativist premises of modern "liberalism" lead inevitably to more conflict in society and eventually to some form of statist tyranny.
GREAT VIDEO. Paul Joseph Watson has had his life threatened by Black Lives Matter.
If you have enemies that are idiots, it means you have stood for something you believe to be right that threatens stupid people.
paul is right about swedish liberals being especially bizarre.....in britain we managed to eject the blairite rabble....they are mad leftist lunatics, like mutte merkel, mother figure to jihad.....
Hi malcolm, thanks for sharing.
It took some effort to weed through all the catch phrases and words in this article, too many words that can be confused, what the heck is a liberal anyway, someone that uses too much ketchup on their fries.
This article could have been compressed down into a few sentences, to me, it seems like an attempt to confuse.
Here is what it can be compressed to.
Human beings, have the divine, god given right to the free and unencumbered use of their bodies, material items and ideas. These god given rights, shall not infringe upon anothers right to do the same.
That covers much of the issues at hand and no need for all these potentially confusing words and phrases.
We already know, they have been using words and language as a weapon against humanity.
The all capital birth certificate name and legal fiction is one biggy.
And creating an entire subset of legal langauge that means the opposite of what most people were taught.
Deception to the core, truly is the world of lies.
peace love light
No deception here VioletRay. Moral relativism is the prominent philosophy of todays left-wing emotionally insecure activists, and it proves that todays left-wing are in full-scale use of hypocrisy and twisting the facts in the name of a political agenda, and under the color of moral relativism.
Here are three easy-to-understand examples of moral relativism hypocrisy. The claim of today's left-wing that abortion is the private right of a woman (with no government involvement) and then calling on government to have owners of guns register due to potential public harm is one such hypocrisy. The claim of today's left-wing that Black Lives Matteris a legitimate organization (who publicly chants "pigs in a blanket, frying like bacon") and should be allowed to publicly march while this same left-wing group of people works hard for disallowing the KKK to publicly march is another example of such hypocrisy. And finally, the left-wing decrying Donald Trump for his claim that "elections are rigged" (and Stanford University proved Bernie Sanders was robbed of California by Hillary Clinton) and then turning around and claiming "the Russians rigged the election in favor of Trump" (and having this claim go public one week before the delegates voted for Trump) is another example of such hypocrisy by the left-wing of today.
If you can't understand these definitions of hypocrisy, you are either part of todays left-wing hypocrits who are in denial of the facts or you need to read the article again, and probably slowly and thoroughly.
Peace, knowledge, love, and ascension.
Hi malcolm, thanks for making that clearer.
I did not see one instance of the word hypocrisy used in that article, that simple word, would have made it clear.
That was my point, whoever wrote the article should use words that have a more clear cut meanng, to lessen the chance of any confusion, so that the most people reading it, can comprehend what is being shared.
My point is simply this, that article is not clear and concise, i am good at reading comprehension and if i had trouble comprehending exactly what was intended to be conveyed, you can bet it went over many others heads.
and i was referring to the very deceivers you are speaking about, the ones that also have created elaborate legal language systems, while teaching the rest of us something different, so we then become confused and assume we as sovereign men and women, are required to follow all their fake statutory rules, when we never needed to.
Just as the article said, they use the might is right method, by abusing people and intimidating them into following their unlawful dictates.
I hope my position is clear now.
peace love light
peace love light
Let me put it this way, i fully understood the article, though i am almost positive, many did not, as it could have been written in a much simpler way, where any joe off the street can understand it.
And the use of the word liberal, is not needed, because many do not even know what that is suppose to mean, which proves my point, using words like that can create confusion, when i'm sure the author does not intend it.
You should have wrote the article, lol, as you write in a much clearer way, using words almost everyone will understand, and that is the goal, for everyone to understand and reduce the chance of miscommunication.
Other than that, the article is great and is pretty much the philosophy i have as well.
peace love light
And that philosophy, is freedom.
Look at the right to travel, they used the relativism idea agianst us and claim that it is a privledge now and needs to be licensed.
Truth is, the poeple were led to believe that they needed license to travel, because they have been indoctrinated to believe it.
So they then created a new word for that, called driving, and that was only supposed to apply to commercial travellers.
Though the intention was probably there all along, since as said, they have a whole separate legal language, that is opposite to the meaning most people are taught.
So you see, they have absolute standards they want us to follow, while the controllers wish to be immune from that, which the article did convey that message.
What the article did not convey, is the actual methods they are using, and that is to lead people to believe that they are subject to all these statist or statutory rules put in place by the controllers, i am replacing the word liberal with controllers.
It is only the peoples belief, that is binding them to these controllers, the birth certificate contract is null and void and the controllers know that, because a contract without full disclosure is a unilateral contract and not binding.
Thus, the only thing that is binding the people, is their ignorance and the belief that all these myriad false statutory laws even apply to them.
They are still falling for this tactic, because they are using the might is right method, just as the article stated and people are essentially being tortured or terrorized to varying degrees, to comply.
peace love light
Many good points from you Malcolm and Violetray.
My thoughts on liberalism is vey much a movement behind the NWO , and the Talmudists with helpers are controlling this.
Liberalism sounds nice as a word , just like communism did , but it´s so distorted into an agenda.
American Jews are leftist while Israelic are conservative - easy to figure out the agenda - right?
It´s all about to divide societies in different ways , like multiculture , and then like you said Malcolm , use moral relativism to further divide.
Russia and Putin has chosen another path:
ANDRONOVER: pro-Israeli liberal U.S. Jews and pro-Israeli conservative Israel Jews follow the same game-plan as pro-Islam peaceful Muslims and pro-Islam non-peaceful Muslims: it's called "good cop...bad cop."
I think that Mike King nails it here: