On "How Liberals Think", Stimuli, Maxwell Newton, and EyeBlast.tv video uploading

Ex-liberal comedian, writer, lecturer and pundit, Evan Sayet's brilliant 3/5/07 speech/analysis on how so-called "liberals" think and why they think the way they do" was captured on a video uploaded to YouTube. Although the visual quality is poor, the audio is sufficiently adequate to enable the listener to easily hear what is being said. I wish I had happened across this video two years ago, but better late than never — especially since the material is both morally and intellectually timeless.


For your convenience, I have taken the time to transcribe some of Sayet's remarks with which I completely agree:

"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success . . . The question becomes 'why? How do they think they're making a better world? . . . If they're not stupid and they're not evil, then what's their plan? How do they think they're making a better world?"

"What I discovered is . . . that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with, none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government, none have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime and injustice must be found, can only be found, in the attempt to be right."

"See, if nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course, we couldn't go to war. Without war there would be no poverty. Without poverty there would be no crime. Without crime there would be no injustice."

"It's a Utopian vision. And all that's required to usher in this Utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality and decency — all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right, and moving towards it."

"What's so Orwellian — and virtually everything about their philosophy is Orwellian — is that the 'liberals' are as illiberal as you can imagine."

"What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove what is right isn't right, and to prove that wrong isn't wrong. To bring about a philosophy . . . where anything and everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there's nothing left to kill or die for."

"Everything they believe is designed, everything they teach in our schools, everything they make into movies, the messages of the movies, the TV shows, the newspaper stories that they pick, and how to spin them, have but one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc., etc., and that's does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil? Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong? Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to falure, until there's nothing left to believe in?"

"The way the elitist does this is by teaching our children, starting with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry. That no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries . . . that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than a reflection of your bigotries. And, therefore, the only way to eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought."

"In order to eliminate discrimination, the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."

"The problem, of course, is that the ability to discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options, as in 'she's a discriminating shopper', is the essence of rational thought. So quite literally we are dealing with the whole of Western Europe and today's Democratic Party, dominated as it is by this philosophy, that rejects rational thought as a 'hate crime.'"

"Indiscriminateness of thought doesn't just lead to sometimes being right. It actually is a philosophy that has an inevitable conclusion [that there is no good] . . . Without a recognition of good, then how do you progress towards good? Which puts the lie to the concept that modern liberalism is progressive in any fashion. If they have nothing to progress towards, if there is no good, then they are forcing every single generation to not only reinvent the wheel but to fight every battle we've ever fought to get to this great nation and this great time that we're in."

"One of the big canards of modern liberalism is this notion of diversity, as if diversity is a virtue. Diversity is not a virtue. Diversity is meaningless. Diversity just means different. Without the critical and moral judgment to say 'yes, it's different and good, you're not only not supporting good, but, quite literally, in a good society, your are inherently supporting evil, [most] failed and wrong."


In his book, "(A) Time to Speak: Selected Writings and Arguments (American Ideals & Institutions)", Judge Robert H. Bork, arguably the first major scholar to endorse originalism2 and traditional restraint with great force and effectiveness, said much the same thing in perhaps an even more intellectually impressive way. See the video A Conversation with Judge Robert H. Bork 6-26-07. See also the video Judicial Philosophy/Originalism 6-26-07. For more on Judge Bork's interesting personality and sense of humor, read the article Judge Bork Converts to the Catholic Faith.


A Time to Speak is an indispensable book, not just for lawyers but for anyone who wants to better understand Constitutional law. Here is what one Amazon reviewer (under the pseudonym, "AWOL Civilization") had to say about A Time To Speak:

"This hefty tome (715 pages) brings together essays and legal opinions written by Bork over a period of 45 years. It will undoubtedly help to seal Bork's standing as one of our era's foremost commentators on law and culture — particularly the struggle to preserve Western culture against its postmodern detractors.

"Bork identifies one of the foundations of the postmodern attack as the uneasy alliance of individualism and egalitarianism. As he writes in his essay Hard Truths About the Culture War (1995):

"Individualism and egalitarianism may seem an odd pair, since liberty in any degree produces inequality, while equality of outcomes requires coercion that destroys liberty. If they are to operate simultaneously ... [they] must operate in different areas of life, and that is precisely what we see in today's culture. Radical egalitarianism advances, on the one hand, in areas of life and society where superior achievement is possible and would be rewarded but for coerced equality: quotas, affirmative action, income redistribution through progressive taxation for some, entitlement programs for others, and the tyranny of political correctness spreading through universities, primary and secondary schools, government, and even the private sector.

"Radical individualism, on the other hand, is demanded when there is no danger that achievement will produce inequality and people wish to be unhindered in the pursuit of pleasure. This finds expression particularly in the areas of sexuality and violence, and their vicarious enjoyment in popular entertainment.

"The union of radical individualism and radical egalitarianism have succeeded handsomely, says Bork, in eroding the foundations of our society. Authority is absent where it should be present, and vice-versa. This produces 'cultural and moral relativism, whose end products include multiculturalism, sexual license, obscenity in the popular arts, an unwillingness to punish crime adequately and, sometimes, even to convict the obviously guilty.'

"And thus we arrive at the paradox that is all too familiar in the contemporary Western world: Those who complain about 'oppressive' 'right-wing' 'fascism' (i.e., ordinary law enforcement) are those most in love with the power of the state. This is because the radical egalitarian project, so at odds with a free society, depends for its success on the deployment of the full coercive force of the state. Bork summarizes beautifully this road to totalitarianism:

"'Modern liberalism presses our politics to the left because egalitarianism is hostile to the authorities and hierarchies — moral, religious, social, economic, and intellectual — that are characteristic of a bourgeois or traditional culture and a capitalist economy. Yet modern liberalism is not hostile to hierarchies as such. Egalitarianism requires hierarchy because equality of condition cannot be achieved or approximated without coercion. The coercers will be bureaucrats and politicians who will, and already do, form a new elite class. Political and governmental authority replace the authorities of family, church, profession, and business. The project is to sap the strength of these latter institutions so that individuals stand bare before the state, which, liberals assume with considerable justification, they will administer. We will be coerced into virtue, as modern liberals define virtue: a ruthlessly egalitarian society.'"

"Bork then probes the nature and roots of these authoritarian administrators who would refashion society according to their notions of virtue. He notes that Joseph Schumpeter 'first articulated the idea that capitalism requires and hence produces a large intellectual class.' The members of this New Class are not geniuses or scholars, they are simply those who transmit ideas: run-of-the-mill journalists, academics, teachers, lawyers, and bureaucrats. They became jealous because society traditionally bestowed its rewards and prestige on the doers, those who built the world: inventers, entrepreneurs, military heroes, and the like.

"Matters are made worse because the New Class are petty intellectuals in search of something to think about. Bork cites Max Weber in this regard:

"'Max Weber noted the predicament of intellectuals in a world from which 'ultimate and sublime values' have been withdrawn: 'The salvation sought by an intellectual is always based on inner need...The intellectual seeks in various ways, the casuistry of which extends to infinity, to endow his life with a pervasive meaning.' ... Richard Grenier observes that among those intellectuals 'most subject to longings for meaning, Max Weber listed, prophetically: university professors, clergymen, government officials... coupon clippers ... journalists, school teachers, wandering poets'."

"Bork illuminates an even deeper level of the crisis:

"'The root of egalitarianism lies in envy and insecurity, which are in turn products of self-pity, arguably the most pervasive and powerful emotion known to mankind. The root of individualism lies in self-interest, not always expressed as a desire for money but also for power, celebrity, pleasures, and titillations of all varieties. Western civilization, of course, has been uniquely individualistic. Envy and self-interest often have socially beneficial results, but when fully unleashed, freed of constraints, their consequences are rot, decadence, and statism.'"

"What I have summarized here is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Robert Bork's analysis of law, culture, and the central dilemmas of our time. His writing is witty and insightful; deep but never divorced from reality. There could not be a better antidote to the raging winds of nihilism that batter us from all sides."


Here is what one of my favorite pundits, Walter E. Williams, a Ph.D. economics professor at George Mason University, had to say about the so-called "stimulus" in his column titled "There Is No Santa Claus": "Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: 'Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money.' A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse."


Here are a couple of excellent videos by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on the stupidity of the Big Bailouts:




Maxwell Newton was an interesting human being with a fascinating story to tell. Following is a video of one of his speeches uploaded onto misesmedia's YouTube channel.


Today, while surfing for "news", I ran into an article about Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) titled, "Senator Warns White House Will 'Create Crisis' and 'Panic' to Push Stimulus" which contained a video from EyeBlast.tv.com:


Although the video titled, "Obama Stimulus: Good For Government, Bad For Economy", linked above was apparently also uploaded to YouTube by EyeBlast, and then linked back to their homepage, I didn't find the Senator DeMint video directly on YouTube, so you can see for yourself how the EyeBlast format is a little bit different from YouTube's format even though I have sized it the same for visual uniformity on my webpage.

I wasn't able to open an account at EyeBlast due to some glitch which I reported, but it's seems like a very interesting website with YouTube-like possibilities.

In pertinent part, their "About Eyeblast" page says:

"Eyeblast is an online platform for people to share and view videos, photos, articles and opinions on topics that are important to them -- from news to political issues and rip-roaring humor. People use the site to upload, view and share content, connect with friends, classmates and colleagues, and make new acquaintances."

"Everyone is welcome to visit Eyeblast to view and search public postings and polls. Registered users older than 18 can post content, rate videos, make comments, create profiles and groups, join groups, send and read e-mails, store favorite videos and content, and more. Registration is quick and easy. See member sign-up page for more information, and read the terms of service."

"Eyeblast is brought to you by the Media Research Center, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit research and education organization. The MRC is located at: 325 South Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. For information about the MRC, please visit www.MRC.org."

It's worth checking out!


1. The deliberate irrationality, sophistry, and hate-filled ad hominem attacks of modern liberalism are the anathematical polar opposite of the carefully reasoned logic of classical liberalism such as John Stuart Mill's brilliant essay, "On Liberty".

2. From The Tempting of America, The Political Seduction of the Law, by Judge Robert H. Bork (who was so hated by his philosophical opponents in the U.S. Senate that his name actually became a verb, as in "to Bork someone" due to the astoundingly unfair ad hominem attacks and demonization they used to defeat his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court):

“The judicial assumption of ultimate legislative power is deceptive and difficult to resist because that assumption takes the form of a judgment handed down like other judgments, claims to be ‘constitutional,’ and leaves the appearance of the separation of powers intact. Those who deny the validity of a jurisprudence of original understanding do not explicitly propose a rearrangement of our republican form of government. ‘The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the power of a heresy,’ said Belloc. ‘It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. On this account it can appeal to believers. . . . Wherefore, it is said of heresies that “they survive by the truths they retain.”’ We retain the reality of legislative and executive authority over wide areas of life. Moreover, we retain the institution of judicial review because we have found that it does much good. These are the truths that make the misuse of judicial power all the more insidious. For that reason, it is crucial to recognize a heresy for what it is and to root it out, for ‘heresy originates a new life of its own and vitally affects the society it attacks. The reason that men combat heresy is not only, or principally, conservatism . . . it is much more a perception that the heresy, in so far as it gains ground, will produce a way of living and a social character at issue with, irritating, and perhaps mortal to, the way of living and the social character produced by the old orthodox scheme.’”