Quote of the day—Mark Knapp

Leopold & Loeb were trying to commit the perfect crime and never expected to become famous by their crime. At the same time, they prided themselves on their ability to throw off the shackles of morality and demonstrate to each other that they had achieved Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideal; i.e., the Superman, who arises above moral arguments that are designed by the weak to hold back those with the will to become strong. Despite the manner in which the present day Progressive elite camouflages its motives by appeals to social justice and egalitarianism, such Superman morality is at the core of much of our modern culture. It all boils down to survival of the fittest if there is no absolute groundwork for our moral beliefs!

Mark Knapp
January 8, 2014
Leopold, Loeb, Active Shooters, Modern Man & Superman
[I think this overstates it a little bit. Multiple, incongruent, moral philosophies can co-exist. For example, Jainism, Objectivism, and Christianity shouldn’t have a problem with the others and get into a survival of the fittest contest. Yet, they are very, very different.

Quibbling aside, his point about Progressives does seem fair. You can see it in their attitudes toward gun owners and conservatives in general. You see moral superiority at every turn.

In one specific case it was scary. An Obama supporting woman I knew several years ago proudly told me she and I were one of the “new humans” or some such thing. And it was people like us who would take over the world as lesser humans failed to keep up. She was sure we were more advanced and knew better than “ordinary people” on most topics.

She apparently didn’t realize I disagreed with her on almost every topic she had expressed an opinion about. I just didn’t see any reason to confront her on the multitude of absurdities she asserted.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mark Knapp

  1. Of course Supermans wouldn’t set up a school program that taught children, “Self Esteem”. Knowing when coupled with human nature in the most indulgent/self gratifying society god ever allowed to exist. Would give them the prefect playground.To give themselves cover for their evil?
    What satan wouldn’t want a world full of useful idiot satans? It’s kind of like creating a place where everyone wants/needs money. And your the only one that can make it. And you get to charge usury for it! Supermans!
    The real insanity is that we regular people,(for lack of a better term). Have been dealing with this same problem/ignorance/evil since Nimrod. Over and over again.And we keep reacting the same way to it. Insane? You decide.
    God inspired Samuel Colt to the answer of equality. St. John M. Browning expounded on the revelations. That humans should no longer be timid in the face of ignorance. I think our forefather’s politely termed it “manly force”? But hey! Girls can use it to!

  2. “You see moral superiority at every turn.”

    I refer to it as “mock moral superiority”. A tactical weapon, readily, creatively and selectively deployed in this war. That some people actually believe in it is all the better for the cause. It’s a subtle, but rather critical distinction.

    But perhaps there’s a way to reconcile the two. Satan, greatest among all the created beings, is intelligent, dedicated and strong, but pride entered into him. He thus sought to “rise above the stars and above the throne of heaven” or some such, and to start his own kingdom. So he had a problem. Kings need followers, for who is a king that is a king of none, and so they need a plausible narrative to attract followers. Hence the need for an alternative, or mock, morality. With that comes the need to portray God’s law as tyrannical, and so on, and on, until an entirely separate “world view” has been formulated.

    Such is the world we see today. I’ve often pointed out that the “freedom” which the leftists desire is the “freedom” which comes from tossing out all limits on the power and scope of government (e.g. the assertion that the U.S. constitution is a “Charter of Negative Rights”). In others words, “freedom from freedom”, liberation from the principles of liberty, or “freedom from morality”, if you like. If it serves their goals to assert some form of “morality” along the way, to assuage their followers’ natural human consciences, then so be it.

    They’ll turn on a dime and assert some other, totally contradictory “morality” if they see it as benefitting the cause. If some people actually believe it, so much the better, if it merely irritates other people, that works too. If it foments hate, it’s all for the cause.

    In short; I think Knapp is pretty much spot on, as far as the quote goes. It doesn’t address the big picture though;
    This war against fixed morality, or more specifically, Judaeo/Christion morality as anchored in the Decalogue, includes copious use of the Dialectic Method;
    Leftists on one hand strive to cast off law and morality, and flaunt it in our faces, while leftists on the other hand have been meticulously working to construct an alternative morality, one which on the surface looks a lot like the original but in fact is a deadly counterfeit.

    Once we’re tired enough of the chaos, pain, frustration and deprivation resulting from their blatant lawlessness, we’ll be primed and ready to embrace their counterfeit morality, or “religion”. The papacy and their Jesuit generals, working together with the leaders of Islam, are already seeing to that. And so it is that you will find little difference between a papal encyclical and a Progressive/Marxist/socialist mission statement or a UN declaration, other than the references to “God” and “tradition”.

    It will have been; “Oh, you don’t like our crap? Well then, have this other version of our crap.”

    Ideally, we’ll be divided into two camps, each fighting for one version of leftist (authoritarian) horse crap or the other, eventually coming to a “compromise” which will have been artuffuly crafted in advance, and which will have something in it for everyone.

    Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

    Then it will be declared;
    “Peace and safety!” And then mass destruction will ensue, such as the world has never seen.

    • “And so it is that you will find little difference between a papal encyclical and a Progressive/Marxist/socialist mission statement or a UN declaration, other than the references to “God” and “tradition”.

      To wit;


      You want a hundred more? They’re out there, and more besides. You want to know where the left has gotten all of its crazy ideas over the past several generations; look no farther than Rome. There you will find every abomination proposed by Marx and all the others.

      • Also;


        So tell me why all these planning meetings between the Whitehouse and the Vatican, since Ronald Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican?

        In the link it also mentions the joint statement of the pope and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. Go and read that statement. It’s easy enough to find. You’ll find parallel language to it in the UN, among the “evangelicals” and in the Democratic Party here in the U.S., and in various statements all throughout the EU. So while we’re arguing over this and that issue in politics and such, each of us in our own country, they’re busy planning and implementing the new world order Bush 41 spoke of so glowingly, which they’ve been dreaming of since before our grandfathers were born.

        This isn’t to convince you, because I know that I’ll be called a conspiracy kook, but just so you remember it later when these things become a bit harder to deny.

  3. No puzzle about the Obama supporter you mention. She was a New Soviet (Wo)man.

  4. It’s amusing that while a typical progressive believes they eminate an aire of moral superiority, all that my senses register is the stench of hypocrisy.

Comments are closed.