There is a uniform and pernicious hypocrisy that cannot be overstated when it comes to liberals and specifically when it comes to cultural Marxists. And tragically for them, their intellectual dishonesty, which is the viscous substance they employ to lubricate the machinations they use to dictate what are acceptable social mores, almost always culminate in exposing them as decadent social subversives.
One example would be the criticism that Vice President Pence received in March 2017, because of an interview he did with “The Hill” in 2002. During the interview he stated, that he doesn’t dine alone with a woman, nor will he attend an event where alcohol is served without his wife being present.
As you may recall, the media long knives unleashed vicious attacks on the vice president. The media and late-night hosts mocked him. Robin Abcarian, writing for the L.A. Times, questioned aloud if such a practice was sexist. (See: “Mike Pence Won’t Dine Alone With A Woman Who’s Not His Wife. Is That Sexist?” April 5, 2017.)
UCLA lecturer Kim Elsesser opined: “If you don’t go out to dinner with a woman, it’s hard to have a woman be your campaign manager or your chief of staff. I believe this is gender discrimination.” Elsesser is the author of feminist jeremiad titled, “Sex and The Office: Women, Men and the Sex Partition That’s Dividing The Workplace.” Typical of her kind, she ignored the fact that not meeting alone doesn’t mean not meeting.
Interestingly enough, being alone with a man is exactly the primary lament by those in Hollywood and in newsrooms now claiming to have been sexual harassed and molested. Maybe if Matt Lauer’s wife had been with him, he wouldn’t have molested the women he is alleged to have harrassed. Maybe if actresses had taken their husband, boyfriend, or parent to the interviews with Harvey Weinstein, they wouldn’t have been terrorized, molested, raped and groped.
Maybe if a parent or guardian had been with Samantha Geimer, Roman Polanski wouldn’t have been able to inebriate the then-13-year-old girl with drugs and alcohol so he could savagely sodomize her.
John Ashcroft, attorney general under George W. Bush, was eviscerated for having drapes placed over the partially nude statue “Spirit of Justice.” He, too, was mocked and castigated for his overt display of modesty. I’m betting actress Jennifer Lawrence would have liked for someone to show her such respect instead of being forced to stand naked to the satisfaction of a female producer during a casting call. I’ll bet she would have liked to have someone with her when a director told her she was “f—able.”
If truth and integrity were the cornerstone of the media, what I have written would have been addressed on liberal programming and broadcasts. But it wasn’t and isn’t, because the media are without respect for themselves or their audience.
Olympic skater Adam Rippon is yet another example of an Erebusic whiner who is like the phalanx of those who trade upon being certain identity as a means of self-worth and achievement.
Rippon, as is common with sexual-orientation mongers, thought he could enhance his marketability by throwing a hissy fit because Vice President Pence dares to take a biblical view of morality.
Biblical apologist Ravi Zacharias makes an unimpeachable observation. Dr. Zacharias states that from the sociological position there are three types of cultures.
- Theonomous culture, which is governed by and subject to God’s authority;
- Heteronomous culture, which is governed by a few at the top. Dr. Zacharias references Marxism and Islam as examples of such cultures, where the few at the top dictate every facet of life for those at the bottom.
- Autonomous culture, i.e., self-law where each person determines their own moral prerogatives.
It is a matter of record that progressives and those like Rippon want nothing to do with a Theonomous culture. They will dishonestly claim that they are not supportive of a heteronomous culture where those at the top dictate the behavior and moral prerogatives of those below. They claim to favor an autonomous culture in which we can all just get along – a utopia of freedom to do and think as we please.
However, their mindset quickly changes the moment anyone, and specifically anyone identifying as a Christian, disagrees with their choice to be homosexual. They then demand a heteronomous culture whereby a few homosexuals demand those at the top set up and enforce dictates that govern the thoughts, voices and behavior of the many.
My question is why do we allow ourselves to be dictated to and lectured by the godless and morally opprobrious who advocate against all that is moral? I agree that they have a right to destroy their lives; but I do not agree they have the right to force heteronomous mandates that force me to accept their debauchery. I am also unwilling listen to them complain when it’s time for them to pay the consequences for the choices they have made.