This is the end of a five part series on how the left went wrong, and to tell you the truth, I’m glad to be done with it. Talking about such things wearies me. However, I felt I had to say these things in order to say other things, and be understood when I do so.
My ‘study’ of the ‘left’ was accidental. Up until about 2007, I was happy to devote my time to reading, researching, and writing, relating to the veracity of Christianity. Then, my (liberal) doctor suggested we kill our daughter, diagnosed with spina bifida, whilst in the womb. I wanted to know: how could it be acceptable in public society to look parents in the eye and say, (paraphrasing), “Do you want to kill it?”
At the time, I had no idea whatsoever where on the political spectrums my inquiries would take me. (I only found out later that our doctor was a liberal.) I literally had no idea where my research would take me, at all. Here is a succinct recounting. But, for our purposes here, I guess I never imagined that so many of the people I would uncover who advocated for the elimination of defectives would be liberals. Because liberals, of course, are as pure as the wind driven snow.
Advocacy for the elimination of defectives, whether in the womb or out, transcended ideological lines, because the proposition itself was perceived as merely an application of SCIENCE. So, perhaps I should not have been surprised to see so many liberal advocates of this position (past and present) advance it, since liberals consider themselves to be the primary, if not exclusive, proponents of SCIENCE-based policies.
At any rate, while studying ‘eugenics,’ I learned an awful lot about the ‘left,’ without meaning to. Frankly, more than I cared to know. But, as it turns out, the information is important, because many of the worst parts of the ‘left’ have not and are not repudiated. Leftists themselves usually have no idea what their ideological legacy is, so naturally they can’t repudiate any of it. Its possible to learn from your mistakes, but first you have to know what your mistakes are. Leftists today certainly know that mistakes were made… they just think that the only people who made them were ‘conservatives.’
So, now here we are at the end of the series, and I need to wrap it up somehow. Let me do so by rounding out my thoughts about how the ‘good liberal‘ responds to what he is seeing today among his fellow travelers, and what that says for the future of western civilization.
The first problem with our ‘good liberal’ is that he rarely takes the time to understand his own ideological legacy. I think if he did, he wouldn’t call himself a ‘liberal’ much longer. But, as it is, I think he is very confused about why things are going off the rails–among his fellow travelers. (Reading my series and then following up with research on my assertions would go a long way to explain it to him.) I think he generally accepts the same premises as his fellow travelers, but draws different conclusions.
The problem is, the conclusions his fellow travelers draw are just as valid as the ones he draws, and he knows it. He can’t very well condemn people who agree with him on the essentials but then quibble over mere differences of opinion.
The good liberal is hamstrung by his own views, which are drenched in relativism. When we look at some of the big contributors to modern leftist thought–atheism, Darwinism, Marxism, or utilitarianism–we note that all of these have the effect of ripping out the foundations and replacing them with pure subjectivity. Since all of them are imbued with SCIENCE! it logically follows that relativism is grounded on solid scientific FACT! His heart tells him that certain things are wrong, but his mind tells him that this is just his opinion. Other people, cognizant of the same FACTS! can legitimately come to different conclusions. Their conclusions are no better or worse than his own. They’re just different.
By far, the most vivid expressions of this right now relates to what is happening in athletics with people who are trans. You’ve got men identifying as women, competing as women, against women, with completely predictable results. When the man walks away with his gold medal, the ‘good liberal’ knows it isn’t right. But his mind reminds him that nothing is right or wrong. The best he can get to it is by saying that humans collectively come to those conclusions through societal evolution… so then maybe, just maybe he adds his voice to the national ‘conversation,’ but oh so gently, as to not make anyone think he’s judging anyone…
… And if the good liberal offers even the most mild of objections, the Left-O-Sphere unleashes its worst upon them. As a result of this ‘conditioning,’ most good liberals just shut up. They know what’s best for them, you know?
Not all of them shut up, of course. The ones who keep talking, drawing the ire of their fellows, end up being treated just like ‘conservatives’ get treated. No surprise, then, that as time goes by, more of these ‘good liberals’ discover that the problem was liberalism itself. Or, at least, liberalism as an ideology was far more culpable for the present day madness than they anticipated.
Most ‘good liberals’ are slowly on the way out of ideological liberalism. The problem for them is, “Where to go?” Become Republicans? THOSE PEOPLE? Dear God, no, not that! Libertarians? These days, that’s not much more respectable. The actual result, at least at present, does not bode well for the future. They are remaining ‘in the fold,’ and they are remaining silent. Their criticism of fellow leftists, if it happens at all, is tepid.
This renders them effectively useless as a check and balance against the growing tyranny and totalitarianism of the left, itself.
Unless this changes, and changes soon, things are going to get dicey.
The ‘good liberals’ must get the upper hand on the leftist spectrum, or else the ones who are decidedly NOT tepid (eg, the Antifa folks), will take control of the apparatus and do what they always do when they get power.
But, more urgently, I think, is the continued rise of Islamicism. (Islam+Fascism). A study that recently was making the rounds, produced by a LIBERAL, in fact, cataloged the global deaths that can be attributed to the malevolence of Islamicists. The number is staggering: 84,000.
That’s just in one year. EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND.
And, for all the knee-jerk defenses of Muslims that is evoked, merely by mentioning such facts, these same people forget that many of those killed by Muslims are… other Muslims. So, if you REALLY cared about Muslims, and not just about scoring political points, or patting yourself on your own back for being a caring people, you’d find a way to take a robust stand against such mayhem.
And by ‘robust’ I mean something that will actually do something about it. Posting platitudes on Twitter isn’t going to cut it. Assuming our good liberal doesn’t want to personally deploy to Afghanistan to engage in single combat with the Taliban, the next best thing is to support policies that will strive for the same aims.
But… this requires being able to identify clearly wrong things AND have the courage to act boldly according to that determination. Both of these elements are obscured within liberalism… unless they’re condemning conservatives. Well, you can understand it. An Islamicist will cut off your head if you get snippy with them, but a conservative will just try to get his guy elected–the BASTARDS HOW DARE THEY. If you had to pick a group to pick on, which would you choose?
I will say more about the Islamicist issue in the next installment of this conclusion, but I mention them here for two reasons. First, the whole framework of Islam is political in nature. Its written into its religion that world conquest is a primary aim. While secularism has its dangers, the reluctance of the West to check the dangers of Islamicism is almost criminal. Secondly, and for our purposes perhaps more importantly, the reason why the West is reluctant is precisely because it is saturated in subjectivity and relativism.
It is worth mentioning that the frailty of modern liberalism in this regards is extremely unsatisfying to many people. Ironically, at the same moment that modern liberals think they are being nice to people, those very same people are concluding modern liberals are a bunch of wusses. They begin to look for an ideology that doesn’t exude weakness. Unfortunately, they often turn to Islam.
It seems likely, then, that the problems associated with modern liberalism are not going to blow up into another Pol Pot or Stalin, but rather in Sharia across the continent of Europe. Won’t that be wonderful?
If it wasn’t Islamicism, it would have been something else. Modern liberalism just doesn’t do for humans what humans need done for them spiritually, mentally, and so on.
In the next installment of this conclusion, I will draw out what the whole ‘trans’ athlete situation reveals about modern liberalism more general, which is its refusal, or inability, to take reality as it really is.