Replies

”They [Alinsky, et al ] seem especially perverse and evil as compared with, say, the sophists and politicos of ancient Athens. [Your point being that our modern antagonists embrace evil incarnate, whereas their ancient predecessors (as an example, offering the sophists and politicos of ancient Athens) were merely afflicted with an overwhelming power lust.]

Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, knowing better, may have advocated the active pursuit of sin out of a simple lust for power, just as did the sophists of ancient Athens, but I submit that modern Liberals, even when in their earlier larval stage (in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s), were fully aware of the consequences arising from their behavior, and they don’t care. It’s no longer possible to escape the knowledge of their miscreant behavior. The stench of Nazi death camps, the despair of Soviet gulags, the horror of Dung’s pogroms, make it impossible to ignore.

Hence perhaps, xzins’ reference to “The all-important question throughout any constitution class should be: “What does it actually say?” and not “What does it mean?” Not that it would have had any effect on the evildoers, but it might have given pause to many of their ignorant and slavish followers.

Maybe I’m doing nothing more than saying what you’ve already said more elegantly.

”Of course that’s pretty speculative . . . ”

Likewise my response, dear betty

Your point being that our modern antagonists embrace evil incarnate, whereas their ancient predecessors (as an example, offering the sophists and politicos of ancient Athens) were merely afflicted with an overwhelming power lust.

Yes, dear brother in Christ. That was my point. At least with regard to some of the antagonists.

I hold it for this reason: Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor is qualitatively different than a Napoleon Bonaparte, or a Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Dong (spelling!!!), Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, et al. (All extraordinarily gifted sophists.)

And all are/were imperialistic system builders. All are evil in that their little "projects" cost an incalculable amount in terms of human suffering, blood, and treasure.

The difference between these mutts and the Grand Inquisitor is this: The mutts do what they do personally, out of perceived self-advantage. The Grand Inquisitor does what he does, quite impersonally, on principle.

Somehow, I feel in my bones that the Grand Inquisitor is the very model of "the mystery of iniquity."

On that last point, I could use a whole lot more light....

Thank you so very much, dear brother, for your outstanding essay/post!

I submit that modern Liberals, even when in their earlier larval stage (in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s), were fully aware of the consequences arising from their behavior, and they don’t care.

Exactly.

And as evidence, when that group grew up and became the movers and shakers in the Clinton Administration and State Department, they didn't lift a finger to prevent 800,000 Rwandans being brutally massacred.

Of course they were deeply saddened afterwards.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!