Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Fascism is the New Liberalism

I'm just sitting here waiting for Dementia Joe to give his Remarks on Our Ongoing Efforts in Afghanistan. As usual he's late, so I'm gonna pass the time by free associating on the passing scene.

I'm a big believer in intersectionality -- specifically, the intersection of stupidity and viciousness, AKA progressive wokeism.  

The left's dictatorship of relativism is one way to escape from the tyranny of reality -- of merit, standards, and intelligence.  

The massive rise in the educated class over the past half century in no way tracks with a rise in intelligence, since the latter is constrained by genetics. There are always cognitive elites, and it is the task of the progressive education establishment to make it more difficult to identify them. It's very much like inflation: flood the intellectual market with paper credentials, and they're no longer worth anything.

Our knowledge class has neither. 

Increased mass education correlates with the shocking increase in mass illiteracy. The left is making it official by insisting it is racist to require high school graduates to be literate and numerate. Equity in a nutshell: if we can't make everyone equally intelligent, at least we can make them equally ignorant.

For Siegel, "the 60s" wasn't a decade, but rather, more of an era that hasn't yet ended. To be sure, the old liberalism ended -- we can argue over when, but Siegel picks 1972, with the McGovern nomination. Although he lost the presidential election in a landslide, his side has increasingly dominated the Democrat party ever since. 

Biden has been around so long that he now believes the opposite of what he did 50 years ago (for example, he used to pretend to be against racial discrimination), but with no explanation. This amount of cognitive dissonance would kill a normal man. How does he do it? Yes, dementia surely helps, but something else is needed to explain how an entire party can become proudly illiberal while still calling itself liberal.

I suppose deconstruction helps, in that it severs the link between words and reality. Therefore, words mean whatever we want them to mean. Language becomes entirely expedient, in service to political power. The rest is commentary.

I don't want to get too far afield, but it's very much like end-stage nominalism, which entails the utter loss (or effacement, rather) of transcendent reality -- a reality upon which our nation is founded, including such perennial realities as natural law, natural rights, and just nature, period, as in the nature of things

Quite simply, postmodernism is the denial of essences. The rest is commentary. And it couldn't be easier: detach, say, "sexual identity" from biological reality, and anything is possible. 

But you will have noticed that they nevertheless draw necessarily arbitrary distinctions of various kinds, distinctions that their principles do not permit. On what principled basis can a man not marry his pet, or his toaster? Why can I not identify as black? In one one sense it comes down to majority rule -- that is, just get five justices to agree with you. 

But this can be further reduced to the rule of one person, i.e., the Almighty Fifth Vote. And people say the Pope has too much power, and that "papal infallibility" is absurd! But for the left, there is no principle preventing the Fifth Justice from infallibly ruling that men are women, such that biological reality -- AKA reality -- is against the law. 

It's just a matter of time before the Catholic Church -- the first and last bastion of natural law -- is declared illegal. Which would represent paganism coming full circle and making a frontal assault on the very foundation of western civilization.  

Indeed, that's how I would proceed if I were the devil: don't mess around with effects, go straight to the cause. The only surprise is that they haven't yet ruled the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional because it anchors our rights in the Creator. For that matter, the Constitution renders itself unconstitutional by virtue of its talk of the "blessings" of liberty. Those blessings com from God, so they negate what follows.

"Today's identity politics took hold of liberalism in 1972" (Siegel). He mentions, oh by the way, that there were in excess of 1,900 terror bombings in the U.S. that year, none by white supremacists or by QAnon, whatever that is. One of terrorists also helped launch Obama's political career. At least he's consistent, in that it too was a bomb.

Yesterday, one of Cuomo's last acts as governor was to pardon another liberal terrorist, David Gilbert. The progressive circle of death!

"It has been largely forgotten," writes Siegel, "but for the left of the 1960s it was liberals and not conservatives who were their primary enemy." Correction: still are their primary enemy, except now we're called fascists, white supremacists, and insurrectionists.

16 comments:

Gagdad Bob said...

Disagree with some of what he writes, but agree with this:

"the need for our beliefs to connect or respond to reality has become increasingly unimportant. We are free to believe literally anything, from the wildest alt-right QAnon [whatever that is] political conspiracies to the wackiest Gwyneth Paltrow health-nut fantasies of the contemporary wellness movement. None of it really matters -- the lights still come on in your house, your car still runs, the grocery stores remain stocked with food."

He obviously doesn't live in California.

Gagdad Bob said...

HappyAcres: "I, like most of mankind throughout recorded history, find myself under a hostile government. So what's new?"

Sameasiteverwas.

Gagdad Bob said...

Another evergreen: "Leftists are frantically looking for a post-Christian religion to fill a hole in their heart. It's so plain to me. Multiculturalism is all they can come up with."

Gagdad Bob said...

The left understands that we are its existential enemy, and behaves accordingly. There will be no progress until more Republicans do the same and understand that the left is our existential enemy.

Anonymous said...

Something we can all agree on... It really sucks that Charlie Watts passed away. His drumming really was under appreciated.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/charlie-watts-rolling-stones-drum-god-1216488/

Gagdad Bob said...

He was indeed a great drummer, because he knew how to swing. Most drummers just rock, with no roll. It's one of the reasons most rock is so awful.

Cousin Dupree said...

It's getting bad -- even the millions of non-existent voters who supported Biden are having second thoughts.

Gagdad Bob said...

Keith Richards said something to the effect that Charlie was like a metronome, only steadier. I was able to test that thesis today while working out on the elliptical. It shows RPM, so if you pedal along to the beat, you can tell how steady the drummer is.

Sure enough, Charlie doesn't vary more than one RPM, whether it's the intro, verse, chorus, bridge, solo, turnaround, outro, etc. Interestingly, a lot of their early songs sit at around 50 RPM, in a kind of 2/4 swaggering shuffle. In contrast, I believe a lot of the early Beatles songs are more of an exuberantly pounding 4/4 beat, which works for them. I'll test Ringo's timekeeping tomorrow, but I'll bet he speeds up.

Gagdad Bob said...

I never realized retirement would keep me so busy.

Anonymous said...

I've heard Charlie criticized for being an unspectacular drummer, not in the same league as John Bonham and some others, but he was the back beat of arguably, and in my opinion, the greatest rock and roll band of all time, and, oh by the way, did it for almost 60 years.

RIP Charlie Watts.

Gagdad Bob said...

The Stones were mostly self-parody after 1972, but that's not Charlie's fault. And it's hard to compare drummers, because many of the great drummers wouldn't fit in a different context: Bonham was critical to the Zeppelin sound, but he would have sounded ridiculous in the Stones. Likewise, it's hard to imagine Mo Tucker in any other context but the Velvet Underground, but there she was irreplaceable.

Anonymous said...

Watts represents the reliably decent worker, integrous, steadfast and loyal. Still willing to accept the task of strenuous touring into his 80’s. And a simple-smart dresser. Clearly, the upset from having lost Afghanistan did him in.

But this isn’t about Charlie. This is about Keith Richards, of walking death fame which always and quite mysteriously cheats death. Clearly Satan is involved.

Gagdad Bob said...

The luck of the genetic draw.

Anonymous said...

I think of the long-defuct Proof Of Satan website. In the homepage picture collage, right next to shots of grimly-uniformed Schutzstaffel, Stalin touring gulags, and the old Battersea power plant belching black smoke, was a prominent picture of a grinning Keith Richards. Of course, I’d been suspicious for well before that place ever figured it out.

Maybe a post with useful advice about never making deals with Satan?

Eric said...

Keith Richards always seemed to be a reverse Dorian Gray to me.

Van Harvey said...

"I suppose deconstruction helps, in that it severs the link between words and reality. Therefore, words mean whatever we want them to mean. Language becomes entirely expedient, in service to political power. The rest is commentary.

I don't want to get too far afield, but it's very much like end-stage nominalism, which entails the utter loss (or effacement, rather) of transcendent reality -- a reality upon which our nation is founded, including such perennial realities as natural law, natural rights, and just nature, period, as in the nature of things.

Quite simply, postmodernism is the denial of essences. The rest is commentary. And it couldn't be easier: detach, say, "sexual identity" from biological reality, and anything is possible. "


Just wanted to see that again.

Theme Song

Theme Song