Why Liberals are Murderers in Their Philosophy

As in chess, and other games, but it is not limited to the play of games, there is always a winner and a loser in the battle of how these games are played. In the Liberal thought camp everything, including opinions, is considered equal. At least this is what liberal’s desire and that is for the world to evolve to a level where there are no losers, and of course no winners. Everything’s equal so that there are no conflicts. A conflict, for liberals, is evil.

In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.

Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.

The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.

An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.

The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.

This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.

Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.

Truth and Consequences

While listening to the Dennis Prager radio program today (Feb 22) I had to journal what was going through my mind. The subject matter pertained to the liberal left and conservatism. Specifically, his thesis stated that young people, particularly those older than 18, tend to lean more to the liberal left side of social issues, while older individuals lean more towards being conservative.

His thesis then moved on further to state, generally speaking, or to ask the question, why are there conservatives in the first place? If liberalism is the ideal social issue position for the young to harbor, then it goes to say liberalism should still be held in older individuals as well. What makes older individuals abandon the utopian liberal left ideals for conservative ideals?

Obviously, from the younger liberal left point of view the conservatives are stupid, or more accurate, less wise (given the attitude of the major printed news media). This begs the question, then why do individual humans evolve from young, wise, and having a liberal left state of mind to a lesser and more stupid state of mind?

The correct ideas are as follows.

• The liberal left wallows in the theoretical, while the conservative acknowledges the reality of life. The two cannot mingle.
  
  
• The liberal left feels while the conservative observes.
  
  
• The liberal left peers through rose colored lenses while the conservative cannot afford wear them.
  
  
• The liberal left wishes while the conservative is concrete.
  
  

An example can clarify the above. The liberal left theorizes that humans are basically good and it is the social climate that causes humans to become evil, or commit evil acts. Today’s news (Feb 22) Bill Bennett’s Morning in America) radio program presented that individual male students were charged with rape. These individuals were attending a prestigious school (tuition for attending listed as $32,000 per year). The social climate for these male students was cosseted, yet their act was evil.

The theoretical application of social change (progressive social engineering) comes from feelings rather than intellectual abstract thinking. It is a feel good rhetoric for the liberal left to vocalize the need for income distribution (from those accordingly to those of need), but by applying intellectual abstract thinking money distribution will not fix social problems in the poor rural areas of metropolitans.