On Who's Authority?
Self proclaimed historian, Howard Zinn writes today in the Progressive: "Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?"
One always has to wonder upon what moral authority any Lib like Zinn can claim that something is "evil". They don't believe in God, the Bible, or any absolute authority so how can there be any basis for determining anything is bad or good? I'd like him to point to some ultimate authoritative voice that would help us know that American nationalism is a bad thing. He won't be able to because he doesn't believe in absolute moral authority.
His only moral compass is the ramblings of his own demented mind, in other words, he is holding himself up as the final arbiter of what is wrong and right. When a person like Zinn does this he is, in fact, declaring "Your god is false for I am God".
But herein lies a conudrum. Zinn does not believe in Divine providence so one has to assume that he has to question his own self-proclaimed divinity. What to do?
In the Liberal world view, there is no absolute right and wrong - except what they claim themselves but even that has to be relative since these people are generally fine with killing thousands if done by one of their own (FDR, LBJ, JFK, Clinton, et. al.). They hate nationalism except when their guy is in power and then they are cool with it. How can one live in such a constant state of cognitive dissonance?
Generally, Conservatives need to remind Liberals that their own ideology PREVENTS them from declaring anything to be evil. Only God can establish that measure and since they don't believe in God, then the alternative must be survival of the fittest - every man for himself. If they can't agree to that then the only other option is to set themselves up as the ultimate authority of what is evil and what is not. However this makes them into the ultimate capricious god since it is their feelings at the moment that determines what is evil and what is not.
This is what makes people like Zinn more dangerous than any indian killing settler, or even Japanese interning Dem president. The level of narcissism required to establish oneself as the ultimate arbiter of good and bad is breathtaking in its arrogance.
Zinn and his ilk have an ideology that ultimately cares not for justice or peace. He hates God and so he sets himself in God's place. But that generates a self-loathing that results in a form of insanity that only suicide or conversion to a true belief in the God of the Universe can cure.
Personally, I would never call a person who could not learn from history a "historian". Do we call a guy who keeps wiring houses so poorly that they burn down, an electrician? Do we call a person who can't read a librarian?
If I found that a school my kid was attending was using Zinn's writings for anything but lining the cage of the kindergarten hamster habitat, I would have words with those in charge of the curricula. Idiocy.
posted by Dan at 10:34 AM
|
2 comments
