See other Editorial Articles
Title: We Let The Vampires In
Source:
Faith & Heritage
URL Source: http://faithandheritage.com/2016/09/we-let-the-vampires-in/
Published: Sep 4, 2016
Author: Ehud Would
Post Date: 2016-09-05 13:45:32 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 1157
Comments: 4
As Conservatives trudging through the mire of a revolutionary era, we find ourselves in a growing state of stupefied awe at the belligerent banality of the Left. And, no matter our relation to them, we must at last begin to call them for what they are – evil. Like the proverbial vampire, the Liberal entered our civilization only by permission of the householder. From the 1960s forward, Conservatives took an attitude of forbearance by minimizing the moral rot of the Liberal as a lack of understanding, or mere youthful naïveté. Thus came the many iterations of that Reaganite idea: “Liberals think Conservatives are evil, but Conservatives know Liberals are just confused.” This perspective would also be justified upon the assumption that “all men are basically good and have an innate desire for freedom,” as American Christendom had conceived it. All of which are patently false notions, and Liberalism by its own right. Albeit under the circumstances, even if short of sympathy, we can somewhat understand our fathers’ declension on account of the fact that the countercultural revolution was then (at least above ground) punctuated by a generation gap: a generation who grew up in the normalcy of Lord’s Day services, biblical gender roles and family structure, private property, and racial segregation were endeavoring to cope with the fact that their children whose way they paid through college in hopes of giving them better lives than their parents before them, had come home spouting all manner of ungodly platitudes antithetical to Christian civilization. Many, showing themselves traitors against country, race, family, and Christ, were no doubt disowned on account of it; but many parents were also coaxed to a position of toleration and, yes, sympathy. Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public consoled themselves – really, deluded themselves – that all little Johnny’s and Suzy’s Marxian talk of equality was merely the fruit of sheltered inexperience and a lack of calluses to be remedied by the rhythm of alarm clock, work whistle, mortgage, and rituals domestic. Call it the Archie Bunker doctrine: much in the vein of what would come to be called “compassionate Conservatism,” Archie dismissed the inane platitudes spouted by Gloria and Meathead as mere childish misconceptions which would no doubt be remedied by age, experience, and a little dirt under the fingernails. Meantime, Meathead and Gloria were working out the logistics of commandeering the halls of power, banning Christianity, imprisoning Conservatives, and genociding the White race out of existence. Their liberalism did not dissipate with age and experience, as forecast by their parents. It merely donned cufflinks, or in Hillary’s case, a shoulder-padded pantsuit. Meathead and Gloria grew up to be Bill and Hillary. Yes, we tend to preoccupy ourselves with critique of the one-time counterculture-come-dominant culture, but we must reckon too with the fact that the blame lies at our feet first. Judgment cometh first to the house of God. We were the adults in the house. We failed in that we remanded our children’s minds to the care of our enemies, whether we knew it at the time or not; and once that seed bore its sour fruit in the Weltanschauung of that generation, we chose to forebear their treason as if it were but adolescent eccentricity rather than the cankerous evil which it was. We mustn’t forget that such forbearance was Eli’s policy in regard to his sons (1 Sam. 2:22ff.), and it proves no more palliative to us than it did to him. So we see the Reaganites had it exactly backward: the Liberals are evil and the Conservatives were naïve. Speaking of our own apostate WASPs no less than the Talmudists before them, we let the vampires in. Our hope lies in the fact that this night has an end and the dawn shall expel them. Post tenebras Lux.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Those people are NOT "liberals" in ANY sense of the word,so WTF do all you people let them get away with identifying themselves with a positive word when they are nothing but fascist leftists? Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal. Those shitheads are closer to being Joseph Stalin,Adolph Hitler,or Pol Pot than they are Jefferson. You/we/no one will EVER win the intellectual battle as long as we allow our enemies to define meanings if words and slogans. In America,being conservative MEANS YOU ARE LIBERAL. "Liberal" in the intellectual sense means being open-minded and fair. WHY do you not only allow but even go so far as to play their game for them by calling fascists that want to establish a freaking police state "liberals"? It's the same thing with the word "gay". Homosexuals may or may not be "gay" because "gay" means "happy". If you go along with their game and refer to them as "gay" to be PC,what you are IMPLYING is that homosexuals are happy,and by definition that means that heterosexuals are sad. Nothing can be further from the truth. I don't know the exact figures,but I'm betting homosexuals have one of the highest suicide rates in the country,if not THEY highest. Words mean things,people. Do not surrender by allowing the left to control them.
My father had the same opinion of the faggots abducting the word "gay" for their perversive 'lifestyle'. Why was the late Tim Russert allowed to define 'progressive/liberal' states as blue and NOT RED? I define the commie states as RED, but the news media would call for my head if somebody proposed the association of RED with the commie states. The truth only hurts the guilty......
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
It's the same thing with the word "gay". Homosexuals may or may not be "gay" because "gay" means "happy". If you go along with their game and refer to them as "gay" to be PC,what you are IMPLYING is that homosexuals are happy
-Alex Kurtagic
#3. To: sneakypete (#1)
Bolsheviks.
#4. To: X-15 (#2)
Because "Red" would have given the game away. To quote the famous Dim genius,Goober Gore,"whut iz spossta be up iz doawn,n whut iz spossta be doawn iz up!" Sadly,even Goober was brighter than either mainstream candidate today. Why was the late Tim Russert allowed to define 'progressive/liberal' states as blue and NOT RED?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest