So after a long bout of mocking Mitt Romney for saying that he sought out binders full of qualified female appointees, complete with protesters outside one of his campaign offices dressed in binders, the appointed hour came and the new cabinet of the man who was too good for binders of women was white and male.
To some this was proof that liberals don't really believe in anything. And that's true and it isn't.
Modern American Liberalism is the movement of a wealthy white upper class meant to suppress the working class and the mercantile class. Think of it as the revenge of the barons against the merchants and the wrath of the old New England elites against the Nouveau Riche. It adopted the Jewish and Catholic immigrants who accepted its values and codes. It even occasionally brings in more exotic figures, like Barack Obama, so long as they have gone to the right schools and share their values.
Liberals champion multiculturalism, they enact diversity requirements and push through immigration, and then they send their children to private schools and buy houses in white neighborhoods. They are mostly unaware that they are doing this. They're just doing what comes naturally. Like most people, liberals are most comfortable among their own kind.
Their kind is not so much a racial group, as it is a cultural one. If you've ever set foot in a liberal stronghold, then you can already recognize the very expensive casual wear, the cars with progressive bumper stickers, the beaming helicoptered children, the reusable bags and the other markings of the American upper class. The one that may spend 5 years slumming it in a big city, gathering tattoos and experiences, before retreating to the traditional comforts of a posh suburb and a high end do-nothing non-profit job.
They emphasize minorities, but most minorities, especially after the passing of the melting pot that another generation of liberals implemented, don't fit all that well into the cultural liberal landscape. It's why Obama plays golf, even though he's bad at it. It's why his campaign staff and his cabinet leans toward the same white males who still run most things, including liberalism.
Liberals have varying degrees of awareness of this, ranging from aggressive denial to passive denial, much as conservatives have some degree of awareness that FOX News personalities are likely more liberal than they pretend to be. And like most such conflicts, the information gets filed away in favor of focusing on a more immediate problem.
The diversity that could be seen in a photo of Cheney on September 11 or Romney's appointments are completely meaningless because you cannot win an argument with a liberal by being more liberal than him. It's fun to try, but it doesn't actually work for the same reason that you can't be more Catholic than the Pope.
The liberal program is not just diversity. It's a grander and vaster program. And those who promote the program can violate any single aspect of it, without facing any consequences or contradictions, so long as they remain valuable players.
Bill Clinton could act out the bad part in every sensitivity training video. Obama can pay women less. Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton can make racist jokes. Obama can govern through Executive Orders and start illegal wars. So can any Democrat. None of that matters because they're all plays in the big program. And the "Big Program" means a new world with good stuff for all. Accomplishing it means ignoring the little sins that would lead to any little person being lynched, jailed or denounced.
Liberals are busy lining up to defend Chuck Hagel, a former Republican who hated homosexuals, opposed abortion and on most issues, aside from foreign policy, was fairly conservative. But that doesn't matter because Hagel is now on Team Prog. Local interest groups may object, but the liberal purpose in having Jewish or Gay or Female auxiliaries is so that they can support the larger program. When they don't support it, they're told to shut the hell up.
Conservatives can be more diverse than Liberals, but that won't score them any points because it's not really about diversity. They can be more Feminist or more Gay-friendly or more environmentalist. And they will only be mocked for it. Because liberalism isn't about any of these things, it's about the package deal. The only way to out-liberal a liberal is not on any single value that he claims to profess, but on every single one of them. And at that point you become a liberal.
Radical groups cannot afford to be bound by morals. The 9/11 terrorists went to a strip club. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah run drugs. But those things are fine because they're working toward a big program. And when you work toward the big program, the little stuff falls away. Like everything else they do, it's just a little evil for the sake of a greater good.
The American left is mostly legal now, but it thinks like an insurgency. It keeps two sets of values, it lies to itself and to everyone else about what it is and what it is doing. And those bad habits, garnered from European radical movements have flowed into the cultural veins of American liberalism leading to consistent inconsistency and showy hypocrisy.
Like Communism, there is only one big program and no mandatory practices that might get in its way. There are a billion rules, regulations, laws, guidelines, mandates and assorted rubbish heaps of paper listing the things that you are supposed to do and in what orders, but none of it really matters except to the little people who are forced to obey.
Membership has its privileges. Not at the lowest ranks, but moving up the ladder means that you are valuable enough not to have to follow your own movement's idiotic rules. The peons may spend more than they can afford to keep down their heating bills, but their betters take jet planes around the world to lecture on the dangers of global warming. The peons may worry over whether they have sufficient awareness of their privilege, but their betters will make racist jokes and chase every woman in the room.
Hypocrisy is the outcome, but in a totalitarian system it's also the point. When there are too many rules, then power becomes the privilege of not having to abide by them. And hypocrites are usually the loudest shouters on any given issue, because loudly denouncing everyone else is the surest way to advance up the ladder and to avoid being denounced for their own shortcomings.
This pattern of hypocrisy is accepted on operational grounds. An official position on sexual harassment is replaced with one that focuses on the outcome of making feminist policies possible. An official position on diversity is traded in, once again, for the outcome. And under the rule of hypocrites, the outcome is all that counts. It's always the ends justifying the means until it turns out that the ends are power and the means are also power and the circle has closed itself.
Liberalism has a myriad of standards, but no single fixed standard. You can be a liberal who has Nazi sympathies. You can be a liberal war criminal. You can be a liberal racist. You can be a liberal rapist. You can be a liberal polluter, profiteer, union-buster, abuser of employees and assorted things of that nature and none of it ever flunks you or your party or your movement because it's all about the ends.
What you cannot be, however, is more liberal than a liberal on any issue because there is no such thing. The issue is a means. Diversity is a means of creating a base that is dependent on the liberal elite and loyal to them. So are unions, and just about every liberal policy there is. And the means cannot be used to subvert the ends.
The diversity of Bush or Romney is viewed as a means, a collection of tokens, because that is what it is on the liberal side. And even if liberals believe that Bush and Romney are sincere about diversity, diversity, a mere means, cannot be used to subvert an end, that being the entire liberal program.
Republicans who try to adapt to liberal values are pursuing a dead end. Liberal values only serve liberals, especially in the teeth of a liberal media. They cannot be used to serve or promote someone who is not. And consciously adopting those values and highlighting that adoption is a dead end. It's worth doing if it's the right thing, but the other side will just sneer and mock because values to them are not tests of character, but weapons, a means of producing programmed responses.
Liberalism is not so much about knowing, as it is about not knowing. It is about the knowingness of pretending to know more than you do. It is about the empty gesture, the loud protest and the snide remark. It is knowing that you are better than everyone else because of your humility. It is about committing to something so big that nothing else matters and so nothing else does.
You cannot beat a liberal with a liberal, just as you can't try to outcool the sneering standing outside a 7-11 waiting for someone to come by so he can sneer at him. Trying it, wastes time and cedes valuable values territory to people who have none of their own. And like arguing with an idiot, trying to win a values contest with someone who has no values, only ends up making the man with values seem like a fool.
The end justifies the means, if the end is liberalism. In a recent analysis of the gun control edicts wanted, the media analysts did not realize they were saying that the acts involved would do nothing for anyone's safety. It was all about politics, and they were fine with it.ReplyDelete
Daniel. It seems to me that the elites use 'Liberalism' much as the upper classes used etiquette in the 19th and early 20th century: to exclude people who weren't 'in the know'. If you're 'one of us', then virtually anything will be excused, but if you're a lowly middle-class person and try to ape the behavior of your betters, then the result will be mockery and derision.ReplyDelete
Liberalism's new standard is Political Correctness, (translation: Punitive Conformity).ReplyDelete
There is no basis of reason, logic, common sense, consistency or statistical or scientific evidence for what is PC and not PC. PC can encompass two directly conflicting causes, ideologies, groups and governments.
There are many examples of ostracization, job loss, lawsuits, even being jailed or killed, when people dare to dissent from the PC line (which can be readily moved when it is expedient for those in power).
PS - It is not a coincidence that PC rhymes with tyranny.ReplyDelete
The Left does not have any CONSISTENT, UNIVERSAL values, Except one that is - I, the Libfilth, am always right. No matter what I do, say or think and regardless of the results of the things I do, say or think, I am always right and noble and corageous and one of the most enlightened beings who have ever lived, and mostly because I say so. The Libfilth do not just "tolerate" apostasy of their bretheren who preach one thing to others and proceed to break every Libfilth commandment because they (Libfilth) have their "eyes on the prize" and forgive any supposed transgressions of their bretheren, it goes way beyond that.ReplyDelete
Leftism is, fundamentally, about man putting himself in the place of god. They feel no need to respect anything that does not originate from themselves, because they regard themselves as the wellspring of ALL goodness and light. Libfilth self delusions of godhood form the very heart of the Libfilth mentality and cannot be seperated from the Libfilth smug, narcissistic self-aggrandizement without gutting the very core of Leftism itself. Libfilth do not criticise their wanton, licentious, greedy and power hungry bretheren because in doing so they would destroy their own silly, self-serving and utterly vacuous claims to supreme nobility and moral superiority.
Sounds so much like the communist party line to me. Whatever the party says or does is the truth. It doesn't matter if what they say is not true, because whatever they say becomes the truth simply by virtue of being said by the party leaders. You can't be better at being a good communist because if you try, you are not following the party line. Even when they kill you, it's good, because it's what the party needs.ReplyDelete
This is a wonderful explanation of liberalism. To sum it up,you can't beat a liberal at his own game. This explains the constant failure of the Republican party and their endemic weakness. Too bad Romney and his advisors didn't realize this.ReplyDelete
The way I see it, СONSERVATISM is about acceptance and respect of reality (a.k.a. "Natural Law"), building on that respect, achieving solid RESULTS (in a way, humbly stopping at atomic level), and LIBERALISM is about constantly redefining and messing with reality (in a way, boldly going to sub-atomic level), it can demonstrate some PROCESS and argue that good results will follow soon, or pretend that bad results are actually good. The trouble is that the opposition seems to be oblivious to the fact that its very ground (beginning with language, word definitions, attached values) is being skillfully eroded and reconstructed by the left.ReplyDelete
Can you think of one speech wherein the Republican leadership has expressed a desire to protect our BORDERS, our LANGUAGE, or our CULTURE? Without those three fundamental pillars of society, no nation can survive. ~Michael Savage, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, 2005
In other words, why bother following the rules, when you can redefine them (yes, magical thinking, @Mr ED man putting himself in the place of god).ReplyDelete
It becomes clearer each day that Liberals just don't like the United States of America. It explains their fondness of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both have the same goal, to take over the Country because of their hatred of it.ReplyDelete
Everything they do is about Changing the country or the country not being good enough. Our problem is that we generally love this country. We don't want to change the First Amendment or the Second Amendment and especially not the Twenty Second Amendment. But, that is all Liberals seem focused on. when they argue for more gun control, they point to the UK which has less gun violence. Of course they have more violence and crime overall, but Libs are happy that it's not with guns. So we see there are Countries the American Left are happy with, they point to them in gun control debates and in Healthcare debates. Hope and Change, we should change it to Pack and Leave. Enough with the trying to out Liberal a Libtard, let's help them relocate some place already Liberalised.
When the difference between liberal and conservative has become such that no reasonable discussion or compromise of opinion is possible anymore on any issue, there is just one option left...........ReplyDelete
Well don't leave us hanging mindriderReplyDelete
Revolution, Civil war & Cession, like in a manner what is happening between the sunni and the shia muslims all over the Arab world. A very unhealthy and unpleasant way of coping with unbridgeable differences. But one might end up with a least one livable society.ReplyDelete
Robert Spencer makes much the same point about Muslims, who can accept any transgression against Muslim customs if it advances Islam. Expedience is their paramount virtue, as it is with liberals. Any sin is forgiven which advances the cause.ReplyDelete
Good article, and well done. It addresses the elite Libs, how they think, live, and act. No surprises there, but what of the rank and file, Joe Sixpack Lib?ReplyDelete
He does see the real results from the Elites as it affects his life: fewer jobs, fewer hours per week for his wife or kids, unmanageable PC rules he has to abide, higher medical costs, and unsafe cities and awful schools. He does complains, until he realizes he isn't talking to another Lib. Then, he snaps back into the required mindset, eye contact ends, and he stops "thinking". He is the voter that knows that victory of the Left is painful. Will he snap out of it before the pain, which will come, becomes unbearable? Can we do anything to overcome his mental "illness"? The pendulum always goes too far before it turns. I think we are near the end of the stroke.
"Hypocrisy is the outcome, but in a totalitarian system it's also the point. When there are too many rules, then power becomes the privilege of not having to abide by them."ReplyDelete
My God, how do you come up with this stuff? One reads Mr. Greenfield and is reduced to simply remarking..."What he said". Congrats on another amazing piece. And thanks.
I feel as if the inmates are running the asylum. You certainly hit many nails on the head with this one hammer....keep up the good work...meanwhile, I'm going to pray moreReplyDelete
Every time this guy blows my mind while saying exactly what I couldn't tangle out of it. While this article didn't complete the scholarly point raised by also including the mind set of the liberal groupie worshiping these holier, scummier and more worthy-than-thou liberal scum-bags who aren't just loyal for immigration and/or "group" benefits, they think they're continuously doing the right thing by doing what they're told, and/or feel good about doing something that's wrong.ReplyDelete
^^surprised I fit that into a sentence... what I said wasn't a negative to the article, there's no way I would have thought that without it anyways. I first converted away for being a liberal (who had no idea what that meant) when I first read this site at 18, and it never really got better than this anywhere else.ReplyDelete
Daniel Greenfield: you should debate the guy from the jtf.org website. I bet you'd be a way cooler political leader than him.
Really? That's amazing. How long ago was that?ReplyDelete
"Liberalism's new standard is Political Correctness, (translation: Punitive Conformity).ReplyDelete
There is no basis of reason, logic, common sense, consistency or statistical or scientific evidence for what is PC and not PC. PC can encompass two directly conflicting causes, ideologies, groups and governments.
There are many examples of ostracization, job loss, lawsuits, even being jailed or killed, when people dare to dissent from the PC line (which can be readily moved when it is expedient for those in power)."
You described Liberalism perfectly. PC is Punitive Conformity.
What a great writer! Nobodys said it better! I cant believe what liberalism has done to this country! Im ashamed of my country. And all the low information voting that goes onReplyDelete
Everybody get their guns out, and lets load all the liberals, at gunpoint, onto cruise ships and aircraft carriers, and send their a**es back to France. We could do it. Cuz we love our country. Libs HATE our country. So theyd leave before fighting and risking their cowardly lives. Just give us our country back!! AmenReplyDelete
Sultan, all you had to say is 'Four legs good, two legs better'.ReplyDelete
So it seems to me we have already lost the battle, we just are not in the re-education camps for adults (The Public School kids do not require Re-Ed...)...ReplyDelete
I mourn my country & the future I wished for my children...
I believe this was the first time I read anything from you and I was so blessed that someone else 'gets it'! The liberal's world revolves around humanism...anything their heart's desire at any given moment. Life is about no one but THEM. Sometimes I think conservatives like company(like misery?), and therefor think a bit more of others but are still steeped in much of what they have learned through their education...humanism, with some Biblical teachings scattered throughout. Which is like an innoculation that insures you don't get the whole Biblical concept...usually. There are those that are 'critical thinkers' and overcome by 'seeing' the light of truth always. I, too, pray for this Nation. It's not perfect, but it's where God saw fit to place me for this time ...and I've seen worse. So, may the Lord protect you and guide you through your journey. Vaya con Dios! Litehaus KeeperReplyDelete
Modern liberalism is a mental disorder plain and simple. It is a mind incapable of reason and unable to comprehend reality. It is a mind perpetually intrigued with rallying for disaster, particularly against humanity, as it considers everything but truth as valid.ReplyDelete
While the nation mourns the loss of yet more children and adults through the acts of a madman, liberals cannot recognize themselves as just as mad and needing mental health assistance as much as, if not more, than these killers. To whit: they champion and even glorify the mass murder, the genocide, of the unborn who aren't guilty of any crime nor able to defend themselves against their own mother's hands of extermination. Yet they claim it a moral duty to strip law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional right to own guns "for the safety of children."
Of course the liberal mind is hypocrisy to the nth degree. But that also indicates it is a very sick mind.
I'd suggest mental health clinics be established throughout the pockets of liberal-dominated cities where all are required to obtain extensive counseling and mandatory truth workshops. If their minds were healed of liberalism both the safety of children and adults and liberty would have a much better chance of being a reality.
Daniel Greenfield: Four years ago. I was a extra brainwashed kid even though I went to private school, as I had read too much on the internet. Since then I went to Israel and met my family there, have started attending synagogue and have new purpose and determination in my life, thanks to freedom from self hatred and a conspiracy oriented mindset.ReplyDelete
You really helped change my outlook on and goals in life, and am now working to allow America and the west create more profitable manufacturing sectors than China with robotics.
check out www(dot)roboticsdesign(dot)ca if you're interested, I could write an article for you on what the future of manufacturing could look like the day this is implemented.
Glad your life is going well and I'm happy if I had a part to play in that. The site looks very fascinating. I suspect robotics is the only way we'll be able to beat cheap labor overseas.ReplyDelete
Thank you and G-d bless you. One day, if I accomplish what I've devoted my life to, I'll write my story and the extent to which your words saved my from going down literally all the wrong paths at once.ReplyDelete
Until then, here's some articles I've written on the topic featured on the covers of magazines: http://bit.ly/YgtCe2
http://t.co/iIRpwJr1. I didn't "write" the third one, but it's mostly my words anyway.
This isn't some pipe-dream research project in a lab, as you said, I also see it as the only way to bring the manufacturing back, but as more than that, as what is a real way grounded in proven products and troves of patents to bring a world where money has less importance, which I seem to remember being spoken of in Talmud.
You can make another "save the world" speech, which I am becoming more proficient in, though if you know someone in virtually any walk of industry with money (especially manufacturing), it would be my privilege to make you and my boss very rich. It will be a lot easier to convince the company to move in a more military direction when they're already expanding, as well. Hopefully, that will provide an even greater benefit for us and the free world than even a stable economy.