The Fundamental Dispute
Why Resisting Authoritarianism Matters…!
That’s the title of a recent Rachel Maddow broadcast.
What is it that Maddow and people who think like her justifies referring to President Trump as a tyrant that needs to be resisted?
And of course, she’s not only referring to the Oval Office, but also to everyone who voted for him, which includes the majority of the country.
Why does she see a President that has already delivered a substantial portion of the platform he ran on as a problem that needs to be solved and a threat that needs to be addressed?
People who see themselves as their own bottom line define truth as whatever they want to believe in that moment. Anyone who disagrees can then be logically labeled a liar who needs to be silenced. This is how Liberals are able to introduce toxic policies into the marketplace while at the same time justify destroying those that oppose them.
Anytime you refer to someone as a tyrant or an authoritarian, you’re implying they can now be disposed of in the same way that dictators have been eliminated in the past. You can’t champion that kind of approach without sounding morally reprehensible, but you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you.
By positioning yourself as a victim, you’re not evaluated as much as you’re accommodated. No one is paying attention to what’s real and accurate when people are rushing to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.
You can’t adjust the perspective of someone who believes that there’s nothing to correct. All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, historical truths, the rule of law, and medical realities are non-existent in the absence of a fixed point of reference. You are never guilty or mistaken if you can say the truth is just someone else’s opinion.
While it’s not always obvious you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured, you can tell simply by asking them some revealing questions.
For example, what is a woman?
However obvious defining a woman may by in terms of their anatomy, their chromosomes, and their ability to bear children – because defining a woman in those terms implies a reality that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – that question is never answered directly. Rather, as Dr. Michelle Forcier says, “It can be many things to many people.”
In other words, the truth about the way in which you define a woman is whatever you want to believe.
Truth is whatever you want to believe…
This is why Liberals hate President Trump, this is why movie stars are willing to endorse same sex marriage, even if they’re not homosexual themselves. This is why Charlie Kirk was murdered, this is why Socialism is embraced as a superior alternative to Capitalism, and this is why Rachel Maddow says that our democracy is right now consolidating into a would be authoritarian state at the hands of a would be dictator.
Any reference to a transcendent bottom line has to be demonized in order to distract from the lack of substance and positive results that characterizes the Liberal mindset.
While you can’t reason with someone who’s unreasonable, you can still make an impact by holding the Liberal to their own standard and let their reaction prove your point (Prov 26:5).
- If truth is whatever it is I want to believe, than I can call you a liar and not be wrong.
- Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. But then she goes to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” How can she believe that what she’s about to say at that point in her presentation has any credibility if she’s just declared that there is no definitive truth? It’s similar to what happens when you say there are no Absolutes. That statement, in and of itself, is an absolute, so it’s a self-refuting statement. If truth is relative, how can I trust anything you say?
- If you’ve been charged with a crime, who do you want for your jury? People who define the truth of your innocence according to what actually happened, or whatever they want to believe?
The Left has no recourse once the falsehood of their victimized status becomes evident. Their attempts to establish themselves as people who need to be pitied begin by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as being nonsensical. They’re restricted by the ignorance of those that surround them. When doesn’t work, they proceed to refer to their opponent as unethical. They’re immoral, they’re hypocrites, they’re lying. Now the Liberal is perceived as being the victim of morally corrupt behavior on the part of ignorant degenerates.
When that fails to vindicate the cause of the Left, they resort to referring to their opposition as tyrannical. Trump is an authoritarian, a tyrant, and all those who support a tyrant are then logically categorized as dangerous, fascists, and Nazis.
Notice how each of these tactics focuses on the intelligence and the character of the one who’s speaking as opposed to the substance of what’s being said. That’s what you do when you can’t compete with the credibility of an individual’s platform. Instead, you attack the individual.
While Liberals are incredibly talented when it comes to generating a lot of noisy distractions, after a while the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, regardless of the tactics used to focus the attention away from the fundamental dispute.
It’s not Racism, it’s not the economy, illegal immigration or same sex marriage.
How do you define Truth?
The way you answer that question is the foundation upon which all of the tension in our society is based.
John Adams said:
Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798)
Pete Buttigieg says that Democrats have been slow in understanding how people get their information. North Carolina Senate minority leader Sydney Batch said, “The Republicans are much better at branding and messaging than we are,” she said. “We will sit here and give you 150 words where we probably should have only used five.”
Regardless of how the Democrats want to communicate or what they want to say, if their message remains grounded in the idea that Truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, they are assuming a country that is distinct from the one for which the Constitution was designed. The extent to which they succeed or fail depends entirely on the resolve of those who see the issues facing our nation, not as positions held by a specific party or reinforced by judiciously selected data, but as a contest between those who see the human experience in terms of principles, and those who dismiss the existence of any reality that doesn’t line up with their preferences.
How do you define Truth?
That is the fundamental dispute.
Executive Summary:
I) The fundamental dispute is what triggers all of the tension we see in our society today. It all comes down to the way you answer the question, “What is truth?”
II) You’re going to answer it in one of two ways: Truth is defined according to what is real, or truth is defined according to how I feel. Those who define it according to the way they feel see truth as whatever the individual wants to believe.
III) You can’t disagree with someone who sees truth according to what they prefer because, in that moment, you’re not speaking the “truth” and you can be logically categorized as a liar. If that’s the case, you’re not merely mistaken, you’re immoral. You’re not just wrong, you are evil. If you’re a politician, you’re not a leader, you’re a tyrant. Those who support tyrants aren’t voters, they’re Nazis. This is how Liberals are able to silence their political opponents.
IV) At some point the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore and the Liberal can’t champion their approach without sounding both selfish and foolish. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you, if you can get them to feel sorry for you. Every major Left wing talking point is framed in the context of a victim because you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being categorized as cruel and hateful.
V) Regardless of how compelling your case may be, as far being able to demonstrate the flaws in a Liberal’s logic, you have to remember that when you’re contending with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they are processing your perspective the same way they perceive themselves. If truth is nothing more than what an individual wants to believe, you’re not correcting them as much as you oppressing them by forcing your beliefs on them.
VI) Ultimately, you’re not questioning their logic, as much as you are challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong. The only way you’re going to make an impact is to allow them the opportunity to function according to the same standards they would impose on everyone else. The moment they’re inclined to say, “That’s not fair,” they’re appealing to a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – a concept they want to say doesn’t exist. At that point, even if they’re willing to concede that you have a point, those who are listening to your conversation will recognize the unsustainable characteristic of the Liberal’s platform.
When our forefathers published the Declaration of Independence, they were able to articulate a cause and not just a complaint because of the way they based their platform on the idea that rights are not dispensed by a king as much as they are guaranteed by God. In other words, truth is not based on the preferences of a king or a court. Rather, truth is based on a Reality that transcends any human bias and that’s what makes truth the powerful thing that it is.
There will always be players who attempt to assert their opinion as a bottom line. While they may have a point, the thing that will reveal that more so anything else is the way in which they define truth. If they see it as nothing more than a term used to elevate their preferences to the status of a universal given, you’ll be able to tell by the way they attempt to solicit pity rather than appeal to a legitimate principal. Pity is evil’s favorite disguise and the best way to distract from what is and always will be the fundamental dispute..
How do you define truth?
The person who sees themselves as their own absolute define truth according to whatever it is they want to believe in that moment. You can’t disagree with them because, in the absence of an objective bottom line, you are just forcing “your beliefs” on to them.
Even when the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, they’re able to maintain their reality as a priority by positioning themselves as a victim. No one is going to ask you to explain yourself or take responsibility for your actions if they know they’re going to be labeled cruel and hateful for doing so.
When you are your own absolute, truth becomes whatever it is you want to believe. Should anyone disagree with you, you can logically categorize them as a liar because they aren’t speaking the “truth.”
With that dynamic in place, those who oppose you aren’t merely mistaken, they’re immoral. They’re not just wrong, they are evil. If they’re a politician, they’re not leaders, they’re tyrants. And those who support tyrants aren’t voters, they’re Nazis. This is how you’re able to justify silencing those you disagree with. You don’t want them to be fair, you want them to be quiet. You don’t want to be evaluated, you just want to be accommodated.
Even when the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, you’re still able to maintain your reality as a priority by posing as a victim. Those who criticize someone who’s in pain are immediately labeled cruel and hateful. Now you don’t have to explain yourself or take responsibility for your actions.
Any evidence that has the capacity to reveal your logic as fundamentally flawed can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be irrelevant. You are your own judge and jury, as well as both the prosecution and defense. Nothing is admitted into your private courtroom that doesn’t reinforce the verdict you’ve already decided on, and you can compensate for the lack of proof you require by simply speaking it into existence.
All the boundaries that would otherwise be established by common sense, the rule of law, medical realities, mathematical certainties, moral imperatives and historical events are now non-existent and replaced with
