Liberals Define What is Human

I want to distinquish between Liberalsim and Leftism, by defering to Malcom Muggeridge on this subject. He said: "I am a man of the left, but I consider liberalism the great disease of modern society."

Basically what he meant was, he was in favor of the weak and the poor, and a champion of them. He was antithetic to worldly authority in the Christian sense - but he sees "liberalism" as a cancer that has grown into the dominant point of view in western society, more sinister in it's longitudinal effects than Hilter and Stalin were. But only because, Hitler and Stalin were discredited. Liberalism is not discredited. He disapproves of the "liberal" view of life, and libertine lifestyle. And so he is Left Leaning, but not Liberal...Muggeridges'
left leaning views were an extension of his spirituality. And I might say also, his level of consciousness. His leftism is well reasoned: it has integrity, it is well grounded in personal spiritual insight. And he had grown into a politcal postion from that insight and not just from religious dogma. His more leftist view suits him. It is a function of his personality. He is a "liberal" one can reason with, and respect...because he is not "liberal" just to follow fashion. His leftism is additive to "humanity," it doesn't diminish it. Other kinds of liberalism are discussed here. In particular, we are talking about another animal. Here we discuss the Libertine - liberal - humanist - politcal animal, and the nefarious influence of this critter over what historically we have called our "humanity.".. .

In the sixties Muggeridge saw the dangers of liberalism as a secular/cultural/ econimic philosophy rooted in what is called humanism.. And he acknowledges the downside of being liberal, he qualifies his liberalsim, as leftistism and culls the good, from the left..and supports his position with deontology and spiritual values. He disparages many aspects of liberalism. In the fifties Buckley did the same, he wrote on liberal academic bias infiltrating the universities. He did this in his first book entitled: Of God and Man At Yale. He disparaged his professiors for propagating socialist ideologies, and discrediting religious ideas, in a school that had at one time, a religious basis. Muggeridge sees liberalism as instutionalized decadence, mesim, and materialism, expressed as Humanism. (see discussion liberalism vs leftism from video link below)

But we take umbridge when liberals are given the power to define what is human and what it is not, because they define it - ad lib - to fit some social engineering model. That is a power reserved for the the Deity they deny exists. The recent NHC push reveals some of the ideas put into the bill that were dangerous to traditional and actual humanity. But liberals always couch their philisophical thinking in utilitarian terms. "For the greater good." Or their idea of it.

In that legislation they were defining humanity for us.

It is assumed from the liberal point of view that the "adult" is
"fully human".although liberals have not precisely fixed the age at which an adult
becomes "fully human." Allow me a little sarcasim - there is no doubt that by " the fully human adult paradigm" they mean: Post Grad Vassar" - for certain.

There's no fog there -at least for now - but hold on, the definition is subject to change. Especially if another university should aspire to a higher level of chic.

In any case.. as "self declared" fully human liberals - they have delineated what is vaguely "fully human" so as to possibly allow for female minority harvard under graduates. who could be alloted more humanity than themselves. This seemingly impossible feat could be accomplished if the candidates were illegals who meet the other criterion. After all, God can make a rock that he cannot lift, just as liberals can make people human and non human, ad lib.

Liberals have perfomed these God like acts in an arbitrary manner, just as they do everything else - reinventing traditions and norms and religious values, casting them aside, in case they get in the way of their self indulgent "progressive" engineerings. The most obvious traditional value being: ' you are fully human from the moment of conception until the time you die.' But is dumping that notion, progess taken too far? Is it progress?

Let's pause for a moment. If that maximum were put on a referendum come November, how would it fair? Since this idea has implications for both the old and the very young, why not test it?

How might we phrase the question? Well, here's thought:

Should a person be considered fully human from the moment of conception until the end of life
vote :yes
vote: No

Watch the liberals scramble to block a public referendum on basic questions about humanity, even though the result would not have any immediate legistlative weight or possibly none at all beyond the results being quoted as the demonstrated desires of the people, in some public debate.

Liberals have succeeded in the past 40 years, in decreasing human worth serially since when
we move backward in age...they continue subtracting humanity back into the uterus,
declaring the unborn baby "non human" and therebye manage to make all abortions no more morally significant than tooth extractions: They call a "fetus" a "product of conception" but both terms are used as euphemisms, and each time they are used, humanity is subtracted, by ( to use thier term) neuro liquistitic programming...Abortion doesn't end a "life,"
it ends, a "pregnancy" say it often enough - for long enough- with nobody objecting, "it becomes so," like magic. But the opposite is true.. Abortion ends a life as well as a pregnancy. The other perception is an illusion. Still there is no mediation on the issue, even to the extent of banning partial birth abortiorn, except in special cases where the mothers life is threatened by delivery. Non human is non human, so what's the dfference in terminating early or late? The difference is sentience. But, the liberal should consult WIlliam Sumner on that issue. (Bioethicist and Untilarian to boot....see W F Sumner: The third way.)

. Fuzzy warm soothing language to couch the truth.

But Liberals are arbitrary in this sense: The fetus is inhuman, unless they say it is human when they make exceptions for their own pregnancies, in which case, they've named the "child" before birth - exculpating themselves from any allegations of hypocrisy. by deflection.
But it can't be denied that every time they rise to sit at the thrown of God...
they have caused collosal cataclysims as their "soothing" euphemisism have given
birth to an abortion "industry." vis a vie Family Planning Clinics (abortion clinics - another euphemism) and other insideous changes that come on so subtley from their self interested philosophy and political action - they go unnoticed - until we are swamped by them. like the frog in he kettle on slow burn, he fails to notice he's soon to be cooked.These changes are then considered "normal." ( Like non inforcement of immigration policy, when enforcement in Arizona is made to look like the nazi goose stepping, and the whole state is econmically sanctioned, I don't belive that has happened since the civil war, or possibly during the civil rights movement in the south in the 1960's. Correct me if I am wrong.since I am addled by the fact that so many liberal outrages seem to look more normal to too many people everyday, but not to me.). .

Liberals defend abortion as fiercely as the red army defended Stalingrad. Abortion rights are the grail of liberalism, held so sacrosanct, that the thought of nominating a midly conservative judge to the supreme court...converted the nomination process into a public smear campaign, using Anita Hill as a stealth agent, to allege of Clarence Thomas, that he sexually harassed her with a pubic hair on a coke can comment. (If that comment occurred at all.) They attacked him, and his character witnesses, alleging sexual harassment histories on their parts too. "Sexual harassment," sends liberals scrambling. A buzz term. They react to it in the same way they react to the term "racist," the reaction is classically conditioned. And yet their own persecution of a black male judge candidate, and his wtinesses was considered ,A-OK, Fair Play. Even if the public lynching was motivated by what they feared he might do, without any evidence. Perhaps the idea of racism was mitigated by the fact that Hill was a black female, a more "human" character, possibly a Vassar graduate. Nope, she went to Yale Law School. That's figiures (see Buckley)

That hearing was a national disgrace. As we see Thomas did not over turn Roe v Wade nor has he tried.. And, the worst cut to abortion rights that any completely conservative court "could" make , would be to toss the issue back to the states. The hysteria and the show of smear power, seemed far more important. Tossing abortion rights back to the states would be so traumatic to the liberals, it would result in seizure activity and then succession of all liberals from the union. But it's still a bit extreme...after all, by federalising everthing, it's rather an insult to the states to say thay can't manage the issue on their own. The liberals must federally confer all rights to abortion, under any circumstances, at all times, even if most women don't want them. as they are;. It's done for their own good.... .

"The smear" is the tool of the liberals. Roe v Wade is as protected as ever despite the Thomas nomination, although , I am not sure why, except that liberals have ordained it, to the liberal, everyting must be federally ordained, it's the liberal equivalent of Kosher..

Yet by indulging them in their obsessions to preserve abortions rights federally, we have loosed the opposite sex to be as promsicous as their failing and weak male counter parts, when self control is watonly lacking there. We have doubled the promiscuity potential, resulting in something we should be proud of, a geometric increase in the incidences of intractable and sometimes fatal venereal diseases..which are hard to treat. Some chronic veneral diseases are now "chic" and as common as household appliances, but only because "they" all have them now:. HPV and herpes simplex are two examples (The first one being the health equivalent of a nuclear time bomb waiting to explode, as it is the etioligic agent of cervical cancer ( This statement should be qualified as " depending on the subtype," warty HPV does not cause cancer..)


Eventually there will be new diseases or resistant ones, which will challenge us at the spelling bee as Trichomonas vaginalis does now - but these diseases can become so virulent they may one day do us all in. As sobering a thought as the immenent collision of earth and planet killer asteroid, the potential for nuclear war, or the melting of the polar ice caps, or indeed - disaster from global warming, But among some of those end times/ doomsday scenarios --this potential may be a more realistic. We've magnified the potential for dooms day x 2.by mitigating the "threat" of sexual responsibilty but by doing so we've also subtracted from our humanity, in one other way - in a way that is generally inconceivable to the libera, because entetainlng such realities dulls the party atmosphere..

(Note: Women's sexual liberty is confused idea, they have simply separated themselves from the biological consequences of sex. Men weren't born to bear those consequences, . No "rights" are involved. Men are born to support women that bear them - and they are as responsible for this disruption in the natural order as women are. But being as profligate and failing as men are is nothing to be proud of...)

But the threat to humananity isn't limited to the very young or related to abortion issues alone ......
Now the radical left legislatures induldge deep thought again and sit on their throwns to legislate another assual on our humanity. They meddle with definitions once again. Except - this time - on the other end of the life cycle - humanity will now "decreased" with advancing age. It seems that beyond, a certain age, a person (if we can use that term with risking being political incorrect) becomes less and less human, and therefore,
they become less and less worthy of health care spending,

They do qualify somewhat by saying only "in a crisis," except that they haven't defined what a crisis is very well. A crisis could be defined as the threatned nomination of a conservative judge to the supreme court for fear of what he "might do" to liberal legislative packages.. In fact "a crisis" could be anything, It would be whatever they say it is. We already hear discussions about "dealth panels." And a new industry of death is not too far off. could we be experiencing "end of life:" clinics soon? There's a good euphemism. Will they rapidly seem normal? Will those who have worn out their social utility be encouraged to use them? There is only one thing for certain in their definitions though... in all cases - to the liberal - the republican, is not human...nor is "the white male." So I'd suggest, you stay healthy, but if you value your humanity remove these idiots from the risk of having any input into health and public policy... do it by voting them our of office. Here is another example of the liberal's attempt at thought:

One great irony of the liberal is this: while they have engineered mass extinctions of life at one end of the life cycle and contemplate the same for the other end, and nearly implement it - they also rush to reprieve the mass murders to save them from capital punishment - which they label as "cruel and unusual"...and absolutely refuse to test its effacacy as a deterrent, using organized studies...yet, they argue it is not a deterrent..

Here is another great irony: The fanatic liberal legislature, and one of their leaders Nancy Pelosi:

"Investigate Mosque Critics" Nancy Pelosi says. But what would she have the governement do, investigate the majoritty?

This strategy is simple enough in theory but silly in practice, just label those who find the symbolism of a mosque at ground zero as impossible to bear, Indict them socially, stigmatize them as bigots. Threaten them, and alienate the whole country..

In fact, it is difficult to tell when Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth whether she is trying to drive sane people insane, or - whether she is simply stupid. There are endless examples of Pelosisms such as this and countless others, here's an example of one more: "extending unemployment benefits increases jobs," another of her gems. But we can see her attack the intuively obvious perceptions of most people, that putting a mosque on ground zero is tantemount in a symbolic sense to declaring "victory" for the plotters. Those sensiblities must be "investigated" immediately.  In other words - people who have a common sense position need to be probed by the government. Did she graduate from Vassar? Pelosi's wit is matched by the typical liberal hypocrisy and contempt of her cohorts. No better example is made  when Harry Reid, one of the designers of the health care plan, voted NO on it's passage in order to trick his constituency into believing he was against it, to increase his reelection possibilities.  It is these types of people their with enabling agendas, and perverse strategizing that makes sensible argument from those "of the left" who maintain that position out of true spiritual concern difficult to negotiate and discern amid the din of their screetching hyperreractive and hypocritical compatriots.

Now I finally understand what George Carlin meant when he said: "The new
facists will be wearing smily shirts and sneakers" they are too soothing nice and chic to wear jack boots and swastikax, they are dictators never the less. And what they legislate for the most part, is generally ruinous.. . ..

I like Malcom Muggeridge. He's not as polemic as I am. haha. His benefiscence is something to aspire to,. so, to smooth the edges,..here he discusses leftism vs liberalism.


Here's Muggerige on the distinction between Leftism, and Liberalsim.

© Toylanders Press International (Gary Stone.) August, 2010

Visit: www.thetoylanderstpi.com