Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"The KinderGarden of Eden: How.............
..............How The Modern Liberal Progressive Thinks (And Why He's Convinced That Ignorance Is Bliss)

[Image: 119013.JPG]

I have to confess that I was so impressed by Evan Sayet's first speech to the Heritage Foundation, where he discussed "How the Modern Liberal Progressive Thinks", that I went out and bought the book, in 'pdf' form. Hell, its only $4.99, and well worth it.

I honestly believe Mr. Sayet is so close to the real truth here that I have only one slight disagreement with him. But after having watched this little antic, by someone supposed to be an adult, I am beginning to reconsider the actual age in which the Modern Liberal Progressive brain is stuck on 'semi-stupid'.

There is no doubt in my military mind that Modern Liberals(actually Progressives) are physical adults, stuck with a mind that just won't make, or is incapable of making, the transition to adulthood, along with their 'corporal' body. And while I now agree that many Modern Liberals Progressives are indeed blessed with the mental capability of a five year old, a good portion of them are somewhere in between that point within the 18-21 year threshold. Those at the later stage should be able to eventually transition, and then hurriedly play 'catch-up' with the rest of us. Once they make the transition, all else is possible.

But clearly, no matter where in the "stuck on 'semi-stupid'" they are caught, they are still possessed with a larger 'ego'(me,me, me) than the mature 'id'(you, you, you) which grownups need in order to reach their full potential.

I remember the old saying of "Children raising children" years ago, when someone wrote about the failure of the welfare program, and how it punishes young Black adolescents, who are forever cursed with puberty well before adulthood. But this so well describes the Modern Liberal, regardless the racial component, that I now view All Modern Liberals this way.

I really could go on, and on, about this,.....and I most certainly will. Its just too grand a concept, and so apropo. And one thing is also certain, if Evan Sayet is disliked today, by the Modern Liberal Left, once this book goes mass market, and the main edition comes out in 2013, he will become the most reviled individual currently on the Political Right, or right at the very apex of this position. Modern Liberals are going to be foaming at the mouth, at just the very mention of this wise Jew's name.

So I am going to post the two public speeches he has made, along with the preface of this new book, "The Kindergarden of Eden". Perhaps this will stimulate others to go out and purchase the book, and help us all finally come to look upon Modern Liberalism as a Real Pathology.

And I honestly believe it is a Pathology. Just imagine going through life, having the mental reasoning process of a teenager, in rebellion against logical thinking adults, not understanding simple logic, or even wanting to change one's preconceived concepts of why and how the universe really works. And just imagine doing all this, thinking the rest of the world is wrong, because it conflicts with one's base child like thinking.

And while one is able to graduate from college with a degree in biology, take exams and pass with high marks, obtain a driver's license, and do many of the things that come with acting upon rote, the higher things which all come down to discriminating good from evil, right from wrong, or sometimes the most elementary 'cause and effect' equation, is just beyond their grasp.

And that is why they view the universe the way they do. Things are in absolutes, and consequences are not pursued, because they do not fit within that 'ego' laden Utopianism that is forever in front of them, but never quite attained.

And that is why every economic stimulus package, which always fails to attain its desired goals, is unsuccessful because there was not enough money thrown at it. There never comes a time when the Input must be weighed against the Results. It's never enough. In other words, "Logic Be Damned, Full Speed Ahead". All one has to do is just read a little bit of that ferret faced fellow, who writes for the NYTimes, and calls himself an economist.

This is the number one, most watched Heritage video ever. Watch why it is the number one.

Here is his second, 2009, presentation to Heritage. Its a bit longer than the first, but again eye opening and well worth the time spend watching.


At the Democrats’ recent national convention, at least half of the delegates – the most influential activists in the party, each one representing hundreds if not thousands of others in his or her local precinct – voted to eliminate the word “God” from their party’s platform. During this same session, these same Democrats voted to undermine the Jews of Israel at the very moment of their greatest peril by no longer recognizing Jerusalem as their capital. The Democrats weren’t finished, though. Before the session was out, they had voted to strike the word “rare” from the party’s abortion policy.

So what’s the Democrats’ beef with God? What do they have against the Jews of Israel? Why do they want abortions to be commonplace and frequent? These are just three questions – and they’re from just the other day. We Right-Thinking people have a thousand more. And they all come down to this: “Why does the Modern Liberal – the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party and throughout so much of America’s modern culture – seem to side in every case with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. This book answers that question.

Before we start, though, it is essential that we define some terms. Most importantly, it must be understood that the “Modern Liberal” is not a liberal who happens to be alive today. Nor is he a Classical Liberal like John F. Kennedy. In fact, he’s not liberal at all. The Modern Liberal is as much at war with liberal values as he is with conservative ones. Just consider the difference between Kennedy’s admonition to “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” and the Modern Liberal’s belief that your country should do virtually everything for you (see Barack Obama’s “Julia”). Meanwhile, the Modern Liberal
finds the notion of doing things for their country repugnant as, being “Citizens of The World,” such provincialism is seen as nothing short of

Modern Liberalism is an entirely separate ideology, new in its prevalence – and now dominance – to what I call the Modern Liberal era (post World War II through today). In fact, I call it Modern Liberalism only because they typically call themselves Liberals and I felt that any other word would make their prevalence and power appear less than it is. I added the modifier “Modern” to make clear that they are not what they say they are, nor what the Liberals used to be.

It is also essential to understand that, while Modern Liberalism is fully in control of today’s Democratic Party, not everyone who votes Democrat is a Modern Liberal. Many – like some union members, government workers and welfare recipients for example – may vote Democrat for practical and self-serving reasons rather than ideological ones.

Finally, while I tend to speak in absolutes – as one does when describing adherents to an ideology (“The Marxist believes this,” or the “Buddhist does that”) – people are people and thus a mass of contradictions. They are in possession of limited information, personality quirks and other flesh-andblood realities that make an individual an individual. Nonetheless, the traits of the Modern Liberal discussed throughout appear so consistently in those I describe as to make my statements true…and the Modern Liberal dangerous.


I first began to investigate how the Modern Liberal thinks in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. In fact, I call myself a “9-13

I do so not because it took me two extra days to understand the significance of the massacres but because, frankly, they didn’t surprise me. Of course I didn’t know the date and I didn’t know the targets, but even as a New York City-born, (then) Liberal Jew, I knew just enough about the realities of the world to know that the same people who were massacring the Jews of Israel and people of other religions and cultures in places all around the globe because they were the closest infidels, would, when they could, come to murder the biggest infidels – the so called “Great Satan.”

What surprised me is what I call “9-12.” That’s my shorthand for the days, weeks, months and now years after 9-11 and my fellow Liberals’ response to the attacks. The idea that we deserved it – that it was, in the words of Barack Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” Jeremiah Wright, “The chickens coming home to roost” – and that the way to prevent further attacks was to be nicer to the terrorists was insane to me.

Here we were facing the most obvious case of good versus evil of my lifetime and those I’d thought were the good and smart guys – the Liberals – were not only taking the side of evil, but they were often
making the most objectively false and even hateful anti-American arguments in order to do so.

Why was this? How could this be? This is what I needed to know, and it is what I began to study, contemplate, discuss and debate for what has now been more than a decade.

About five years ago, I presented my thesis on “How the Modern Liberal Thinks” in a lecture to the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. I began the talk by saying, “I’ve got to imagine that just about every one of us in this room recognizes that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I’m here to propose to you that it’s not just ‘just about’ every issue; it’s quite literally every issue. And it’s not just wrong; it’s as wrong as wrong can be.”

Half a decade later, I am even more convinced that the Modern Liberal is, in fact, as wrong as wrong can be on quite literally every issue. That is, I have no doubt that he will at every turn side with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success and, first and foremost, with the evil over the good.

The question, then, becomes: “why?” Why do so many seemingly nice, caring, and in every other way smart people make the must ludicrous and hateful arguments on behalf of all that is evil, failed and wrong? Why is so much of their enmity aimed at all that is good, right and successful?

And the explanation I offered over the next forty or so minutes in 2007 was so satisfying to so many that this little wonkish talk by this then-unknown political commentator went viral on the Internet. Andrew Breitbart called that talk “one of the five most important conservative speeches ever given.” It has even been used by one of the nation’s leading intelligence experts to create a computer program to help anticipate terrorist attacks from Leftist groups like the New Black Panthers and Leftist enemies like Hugo Chavez.

But as the talk was beginning to go viral, I was reminded that a scientific theory – even in the softest of soft sciences like psychology, sociology and
political science – is not recognized as true simply because it offers an elegant, powerful and satisfying explanation of events that have already taken place. In order for a theory to be accepted as true, one has to be able to use it to be able to anticipate and predict behaviors that have not yet come to be.

Clearly, back in 2007, there was no way I could have known that Barack Obama would be the Democratic Party’s nominee, or that by the end of the following year he’d be elected president of the United States – much less that, as president, he would bow down before some world leaders but not others. Yet, my theory anticipated to perfection that if a President Obama did bow down before some world leaders but not others, it would be to the despotic king of Saudi Arabia (the home of 15 of the 19 terrorists who massacred thousands of Americans on 9-11) and to the symbol of the Japanese imperialism that brought us the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March to whom he would bow but not to the Queen of England.

And, while back in 2007, I couldn’t possibly have known just who would and wouldn’t give a future President Obama gifts, my theory had anticipated to perfection that a Modern Liberal president would gladly accept an anti-America propaganda book from the socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, while unceremoniously returning the gift of a bust of Winston Churchill to our friends in Great Britain.

And I couldn’t have known that someday a President Obama would order NASA to use its dwindling resources to honor one religion, while at the same time spitting in the face of the leaders of two others. Still, my theory anticipated to perfection that if a Modern Liberal president were to do these things, it would be Islam that he would seek to honor while it would be the Jew, Benjamin Netanyahu, he would publicly shun at the very
moment of Israel’s greatest peril and the peaceloving Dalai Lama, he would force to exit the White House past the Obama family’s trash.

And while, of course, there was no way that I could have known in 2007 just where revolutions would crop up across the globe during a future Obama administration; my theory anticipated to perfection that if they popped up where they eventually did, a Modern Liberal president would oppose the democratic uprising in Iran, support the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, call for a coup to replace an allied democracy in Honduras, “lead from behind” in Libya and do nothing while a second-generation mass murderer mowed his own people down in the streets in Syria.

My theory was able to anticipate every one of these actions because I knew that the Modern Liberal – whether it was Barack Obama or anyone else who shared his ideology – would follow the Four Laws of the Unified Field Theory of Liberalism and its Corollaries. And because they would I knew that the Modern Liberal would in every case side with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right and the evil over the good.
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
I came across this book yesterday, while browsing around, and somehow think it may have some relationship to The Kindergarden of Eden. From what I can see, it is not political in nature, but its theme of getting one's adolescents to actually become adults seem to go hand in hand.

[Image: 51IdrcJqOkL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-stic..._OU01_.jpg]
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Here is a classic example of what Mr. Sayet is describing in his book: 'Godless' Sarah Silverman Says Religion to Blame for 'Massive' Amount of Death.

Quote:Comedian Sarah Silverman is proudly "godless" but spends plenty of her stand-up acting addressing religion all the same.

Silverman described her lack of spirituality with HuffPost Live late last month, slamming faith in the harshest terms possible.

Religion kills, she says, not mentioning her full-throated embrace of abortion or a strain of religion today that is directly tied to thousands of deaths worldwide--radical Islam. Instead, she focused on attacking Christians for their "unacceptance."

"I'm godless but I'm fascinated by religion ... there's a lot of beauty in religion ... I also think it's responsible for a massive amount of human deaths. I think Jesus, should he have been real, would be disgusted by a lot of the people who use his name to justify things like hatred or unacceptance."

The sad truth is that so many are unable to use simple logic, because their brains are not mature enough to use logic properly. Religion does not kill, just as guns do not kill. It is bad people who kill other people, by using such things as religion to justify their behaviour. Same thing with guns, and other instruments of killing.

Ms. Silverman is quite simply someone moving around in an adult body, yet still possessing an adolescent mentality.
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Here is an older video of him formulating his thinking.

About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Mr. Sayet describes what got him started politically.

About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
The Bill Whittle Interview at PJ Media

About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)