The Devil and Maureen Dowd
Timothy Birdnow
The Blue Fairie, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, has been at it heartily these days, launching a series of attacks against Catholicism and Catholics. George Weigel highlights her latest acts of dummyspeak in a piece at National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270110/maureen-dowd-s-catholic-problem-george-weigel?page=1#.TgDTxX0ZscE;email
Why do I call Maureen Dowd the Blue Fairie? Because she is first and foremost the voice of Blue State America, and because in her personal life is quite blue, suffering the slings and arrows that her philosophical choice has wrought. She has punished herself, choosing a life path tightly bound by unnatural philosophical positions like feminism, the sexual revolution, the worship of the State, etc. which bring her spiritual suffering and discontentment but which she clings to all the more strongly when faced with that very suffering.
She has trouble with men, because she is a feminist who thinks men are scumbags, yet when men reject her she grasps her feminism all the more, believing that the problem is outside her rather than a result of her inner deformity. In short, she sets herself up as a rival to the men in her life, and likely is a regal bitch to them. When they leave, she blames it on sexism, rather than face the fact that she is driving them away.
This is what is meant by Divine punishment; God does not pull out a bullwhip and thrash a sinner. Rather, the sinner is, well, mentally deranged, and is violating immutable laws of reality. If a man jumps off a cliff, believing he can fly, we say he is insane, yet a liberal jumps off the cliff of reality and suffers the pains that the poor Blue Fairie suffers, the spiritual and emotional torment, yet we fail to accept this as the result of a willful refusal to accept reality and live in accordance with it.
That is why liberals tend to be so miserable; they are trying to go the wrong way down the street. Ever swimming against the tide, they suffer. And in that suffering comes a sense of identity, a view that their suffering is somehow a martyrdom for their beliefs. It is, but it is a stupid martyrdom, a gift to the void, to anarchy, to nothing. It's rather like burning your money; no good comes of that. Liberal burn their spiritual currency, and then when they are hungry and ill-clothed they blame it on those who told them not to do it.
This is MoDo in a nutshell. She hates the Catholic Church because, however imperfectly the Church upholds it's ideals, it tells her she is wrong. (Frankly, I prefer a hypocrit to a standardless person; the hypocrit can at least be held to account based on public examination while the standardless is immune to any persuasion.) Like a willful child Ms. Dowd hates the voice of authority, and imparts her own hatred to those telling her how to not be so miserable. And like a dog returning to it's vomit she feeds herself on that very same bile that made her sick to begin with. It's a vicious circle - but not a peculiarity singular to MoDo. It's Liberalism. A rebellion against reality.
I call her a fairie because she is gossamer; her heavyweight thinking amounts to easy platitudes, snarks, word games, an unwillingness to engage in real in-depth thinking. She, like many in the media, in academia, in the arts, is a particularly lazy thinker, prefering to believe what the inner core of the Left generates and regurgitating it in platitudes. And that is what she does; she BELIEVES! George Weigel makes that very point in his essay:
"The last is, in fact, the key to understanding Maureen Dowd’s particular form of virulent anti-Catholicism. Ms. Dowd believes in the sexual revolution as fervently as Archbishop Dolan believes in the Creed in which he leads his congregation at St. Patrick’s every Sunday. The difference between them is that Archbishop Dolan can rationally defend the articles in the Creed, while Maureen Dowd is impervious to the massive empirical evidence that demonstrates that the sexual revolution has been a snare and a delusion for a) women, b) children, c) men, d) marriage, e) family stability, and f) the country’s political culture (cf. Clinton, William Jefferson [whom Dowd helped save in 1998]). Interestingly enough, and in this respect, Maureen Dowd is not the linear descendant of Nast and the rationalist anti-Catholics, who were more often than not the “progressives” of their day. Rather, she is the rhetorical great-great-granddaughter of Elder W. C. Benson and his 1928 anti-Catholic screed, the difference being that Benson’s fundamentalism involved notions of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, while Dowdian fundamentalism involves an irrational and empirically unsustainable belief in the sexual revolution."
End excerpt.
Liberalism is a belief, consciously chosen. It is not Reason in a real sense; it involves assumptions about reality, about morality, about eternity. Those assumptions are antithetical to Christian and Jewish beliefs, a counterfeit religion. And since that religion is based in the physical world it requires all adherents to labor here to bring about a leftist paradise on Earth.
As John Lennon put it:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
And what is this but a grieving of the Holy Spirit? The Bible says that is the one unforgivable sin; why? Because it is a conscious rejection of God for some Earthly thing. In the case of liberalism it is a rejection of God for an Earthly religion, a belief in Man and Man's material god. Once chosen it is hard, hard, hard to break, because no amount of discipline will matter. Maureen Dowd is an example; she doubles down on her beliefs, despite the fact that they cause her pain and suffering. She is unwilling to ask herself that fundamental question; is she right or wrong? She, like Lucifer, has made her choice.
I realize this sounds harsh, and I am hardly saying she is a devil, but it's the same choice made by that first rebel (you know, the guy to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his tombe "Rules for Radicals"). I am not judging the Blue Fairie, but using her as an example of the great lie of liberalism. We all have to make choices in this life, and the liberal has generally made theirs. That is not to say that all liberals are bad people, or destined for hell, but it is to say that they have chosen a very treacherous path, sometimes through laziness or shallowness, but it is a path that leads to suffering. And it is a hard choice to break, because it establishes a sense of identity. Like being homosexual; there are homosexuals called bug chasers who WANT to become HIV positive, to prove their committment to their "sexual identity". They think they are authentic if they get sick. This is the madness that is Liberalism, and it is point I was making.
Now, I'm not saying that all atheists are sick with this malady; many good atheists see the folly of liberal thinking, that it is at odds with reality. The matter of their souls is in the hands of a loving and all-powerful Deity, and I cannot say what the final result may be. They certainly haven't decided to pretend that the Universe works the way they say it does. Liberals do that. Liberals violate the First Commandment - they deify themselves and Man in general. They believe that they can imagine (as John Lennon clearly did) a world more to their liking, and that this will be so. They ignore simple reality, substituting their delusions. They believe they can fly, and eagerly run to the cliff's edge.
And poor Maureen Dowd is caught in this trap. Miserable by her own admission, she nevertheless refuses to change her beliefs, doubling down on them when the pain rises. I feel very sorry for her.
Reality is that thing that, when you stop believing in it, won't go away, according to writer Phillip K. Dick. Dick was right. Liberals really should take this to heart.
But they can't.
"For we will not inherit with them on yonder side of Jordan, or forward; because our inheritance is fallen to us this side of Jordan" (Numbers 32:19)
"
The Blue Fairie, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, has been at it heartily these days, launching a series of attacks against Catholicism and Catholics. George Weigel highlights her latest acts of dummyspeak in a piece at National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270110/maureen-dowd-s-catholic-problem-george-weigel?page=1#.TgDTxX0ZscE;email
Why do I call Maureen Dowd the Blue Fairie? Because she is first and foremost the voice of Blue State America, and because in her personal life is quite blue, suffering the slings and arrows that her philosophical choice has wrought. She has punished herself, choosing a life path tightly bound by unnatural philosophical positions like feminism, the sexual revolution, the worship of the State, etc. which bring her spiritual suffering and discontentment but which she clings to all the more strongly when faced with that very suffering.
She has trouble with men, because she is a feminist who thinks men are scumbags, yet when men reject her she grasps her feminism all the more, believing that the problem is outside her rather than a result of her inner deformity. In short, she sets herself up as a rival to the men in her life, and likely is a regal bitch to them. When they leave, she blames it on sexism, rather than face the fact that she is driving them away.
This is what is meant by Divine punishment; God does not pull out a bullwhip and thrash a sinner. Rather, the sinner is, well, mentally deranged, and is violating immutable laws of reality. If a man jumps off a cliff, believing he can fly, we say he is insane, yet a liberal jumps off the cliff of reality and suffers the pains that the poor Blue Fairie suffers, the spiritual and emotional torment, yet we fail to accept this as the result of a willful refusal to accept reality and live in accordance with it.
That is why liberals tend to be so miserable; they are trying to go the wrong way down the street. Ever swimming against the tide, they suffer. And in that suffering comes a sense of identity, a view that their suffering is somehow a martyrdom for their beliefs. It is, but it is a stupid martyrdom, a gift to the void, to anarchy, to nothing. It's rather like burning your money; no good comes of that. Liberal burn their spiritual currency, and then when they are hungry and ill-clothed they blame it on those who told them not to do it.
This is MoDo in a nutshell. She hates the Catholic Church because, however imperfectly the Church upholds it's ideals, it tells her she is wrong. (Frankly, I prefer a hypocrit to a standardless person; the hypocrit can at least be held to account based on public examination while the standardless is immune to any persuasion.) Like a willful child Ms. Dowd hates the voice of authority, and imparts her own hatred to those telling her how to not be so miserable. And like a dog returning to it's vomit she feeds herself on that very same bile that made her sick to begin with. It's a vicious circle - but not a peculiarity singular to MoDo. It's Liberalism. A rebellion against reality.
I call her a fairie because she is gossamer; her heavyweight thinking amounts to easy platitudes, snarks, word games, an unwillingness to engage in real in-depth thinking. She, like many in the media, in academia, in the arts, is a particularly lazy thinker, prefering to believe what the inner core of the Left generates and regurgitating it in platitudes. And that is what she does; she BELIEVES! George Weigel makes that very point in his essay:
"The last is, in fact, the key to understanding Maureen Dowd’s particular form of virulent anti-Catholicism. Ms. Dowd believes in the sexual revolution as fervently as Archbishop Dolan believes in the Creed in which he leads his congregation at St. Patrick’s every Sunday. The difference between them is that Archbishop Dolan can rationally defend the articles in the Creed, while Maureen Dowd is impervious to the massive empirical evidence that demonstrates that the sexual revolution has been a snare and a delusion for a) women, b) children, c) men, d) marriage, e) family stability, and f) the country’s political culture (cf. Clinton, William Jefferson [whom Dowd helped save in 1998]). Interestingly enough, and in this respect, Maureen Dowd is not the linear descendant of Nast and the rationalist anti-Catholics, who were more often than not the “progressives” of their day. Rather, she is the rhetorical great-great-granddaughter of Elder W. C. Benson and his 1928 anti-Catholic screed, the difference being that Benson’s fundamentalism involved notions of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, while Dowdian fundamentalism involves an irrational and empirically unsustainable belief in the sexual revolution."
End excerpt.
Liberalism is a belief, consciously chosen. It is not Reason in a real sense; it involves assumptions about reality, about morality, about eternity. Those assumptions are antithetical to Christian and Jewish beliefs, a counterfeit religion. And since that religion is based in the physical world it requires all adherents to labor here to bring about a leftist paradise on Earth.
As John Lennon put it:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
And what is this but a grieving of the Holy Spirit? The Bible says that is the one unforgivable sin; why? Because it is a conscious rejection of God for some Earthly thing. In the case of liberalism it is a rejection of God for an Earthly religion, a belief in Man and Man's material god. Once chosen it is hard, hard, hard to break, because no amount of discipline will matter. Maureen Dowd is an example; she doubles down on her beliefs, despite the fact that they cause her pain and suffering. She is unwilling to ask herself that fundamental question; is she right or wrong? She, like Lucifer, has made her choice.
I realize this sounds harsh, and I am hardly saying she is a devil, but it's the same choice made by that first rebel (you know, the guy to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his tombe "Rules for Radicals"). I am not judging the Blue Fairie, but using her as an example of the great lie of liberalism. We all have to make choices in this life, and the liberal has generally made theirs. That is not to say that all liberals are bad people, or destined for hell, but it is to say that they have chosen a very treacherous path, sometimes through laziness or shallowness, but it is a path that leads to suffering. And it is a hard choice to break, because it establishes a sense of identity. Like being homosexual; there are homosexuals called bug chasers who WANT to become HIV positive, to prove their committment to their "sexual identity". They think they are authentic if they get sick. This is the madness that is Liberalism, and it is point I was making.
Now, I'm not saying that all atheists are sick with this malady; many good atheists see the folly of liberal thinking, that it is at odds with reality. The matter of their souls is in the hands of a loving and all-powerful Deity, and I cannot say what the final result may be. They certainly haven't decided to pretend that the Universe works the way they say it does. Liberals do that. Liberals violate the First Commandment - they deify themselves and Man in general. They believe that they can imagine (as John Lennon clearly did) a world more to their liking, and that this will be so. They ignore simple reality, substituting their delusions. They believe they can fly, and eagerly run to the cliff's edge.
And poor Maureen Dowd is caught in this trap. Miserable by her own admission, she nevertheless refuses to change her beliefs, doubling down on them when the pain rises. I feel very sorry for her.
Reality is that thing that, when you stop believing in it, won't go away, according to writer Phillip K. Dick. Dick was right. Liberals really should take this to heart.
But they can't.
"For we will not inherit with them on yonder side of Jordan, or forward; because our inheritance is fallen to us this side of Jordan" (Numbers 32:19)
"
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home