Wishing to Make It So

Ben Turpin: an early Democrat?

It doesn’t matter to liberals that something can be proved as right. Right and wrong are not admissible concepts as opposites in the liberal universe.  Things are supposed to be what they want thingsg to be. Or that they imagine things ideally ought to be regardless of the evidence. Incontestability to liberals is purely subjective, a matter of opinion.  “To you, water flows downhill; to us it’s a lateral move. Besides, who’s to say what‘s up or down? Flat or round?” It’s a ‘broader issue’ that matters, not the facts of an issue, not the evidence of your senses.  It’s how things are not, that should be the paramount issue, not as they are.

Noam Chomsky, the influential linguist, claimed that language is “instinctual” and not primarily cognitive. This means that writing a sentence that adheres to logic and clarity is an automatic action, in the same realm as a mouse in a maze seeking the fastest way to a piece of cheese.

In the 1960s, linguist Noam Chomsky proposed a revolutionary idea: We are all born with an innate knowledge of grammar that serves as the basis for all language acquisition. In other words, for humans, language is a basic instinct. The theory, however, has long been met with widespread criticism — until now. A new study presents compelling evidence to suggest Chomsky may have been right all along.

If you read through Chomsky’s theory (or anyone else’s linguistic theory) you will not encounter the idea that things have identities, and names.  Or that men have volition, e.g., the choice to think or not. Tracing the etymological history of any word from Shakespeare’s time to the present will not be of help, for liberals will automatically reject any explanation or word history that introduces logic or rejects the idea that names are not arbitrary “constructs.”

The subject here is not linguistics (a science or study not governed by reason), but rather how liberals are driven by emotions which in turn govern their politics.

In total contradiction of most linguistic theories, novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote:

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

But since the work of man’s mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone’s authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

In short, Rand wrote that emotions are not tools of cognition. They are reactive phenomenona linked to things one has already thought about. Emotions are not a means of acquiring knowledge.

On a personal level, one must choose between Mae West as one’s ideal of feminine beauty, or Greta Garbo, between indifferent promiscuity and an absence of values, between a passionate commitment to values and a celebration and permanence of values.

On another level, liberals and the Democrats want no wall between the U.S.  and Mexico, and want illegals not to be separated from what may or may not be their children, and want President Trump to give in and help them create their ideal world and a country saturated with illegals who will provide the Dems with a bigger voting bloc. Demonstrating that Time Magazine’s Photo Shopped cover is based on a lie has proven to be futile, because the MSM and the Dems are closed to reason and uphold their emotions as the touchstone of unimpeachable evidence, and will continue to spread the lie. (As though evidence historically has meant nothing to the liberals.)

To the liberals, an ideal world would not have Confederate statues that trigger them, “sexist” language or even cheerleaders which would be banned, schools and churches would teach children the “beauties” of Islam, the “white” patriarchy would be vanquished, and Al Gore would be the patron saint of a pollution-free world. And no one would complain, or dare to, without risking a visit from Antifa.

While Trump has often said that the Dems passed the current immigration law under Obama, and that Congress must fix it or pass a new one that isn’t so “cruel,” that is a futile observation, as well. This week Chuck Schumer has said it is Trump’s responsibility, not Congress’s. The Dems  Party is also known as the “plantation” party, because it endorses the welfare state, and endorsed black subservience to and dependency on the government even before the Civil War.

A perfect liberal world would include a certifiable mad woman, such as Maxine Waters, who pep talks drooling liberals to harass Trump supporters and staffers.

DC (and other publications) reported on Mad Maxi’s latest rant:

“Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants … who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ‘No peace, no sleep! No peace, no sleep!”

Waters then called for attacks on individual members of the Trump administration, saying, “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

To which, President Trump tweeted:

“Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party,” Trump wrote in a tweet. “She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!”