July 28, 2003
The cult of Liberalism probably encompasses the most twisted belief systems in the world, far worse than any beliefs held since the Middle Ages by the Judeo-Christian religions they despise so much. In order to be a modern Liberal, one must abandon all use of cause-and-effect, so-called "common sense", and Occam's Razor (of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest which accounts for all the facts). One must defy logic at every turn. One must embrace the most illogical, convoluted, simply WRONG solutions for every problem.
First and foremost: to be a Liberal, one must believe that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. For every dollar I make, for instance, there is one dollar less for someone. Every dollar I don't spend but keep is a dollar that I'm deliberately preventing someone else from having. One must believe that government, not business, creates wealth. One must conceive the idea that it's the job of the government to redress the imbalance -- that is, the government exists to hand out money, and to make sure that everyone gets an equal amount by taking it away from people that wrongfully keep it. By this twisted perversion of logic, anyone who makes a profit, keeps a bank account, owns stocks, or has anything they don't actually need is Evil. In other words: Capitalism bad, Socialism good.
To be a Liberal, one must be able to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. For instance: Everyone Is The Same, and Everyone Is Unique. To Liberals, no one person is better than any other, in any way. To suggest that some people are smarter, faster, stronger or more clever than others is an anathema. To be so is to have an "unfair" advantage. Should two people play chess, the winner cannot possibly have won because he is smarter or a better tactician. Suggesting it makes one arrogant, rude and "politically incorrect"; insensitive to the loser. Oh, sorry -- to the, um, non-winner (my apologies to all the losers out there). In fact, all games and competitions that result in "winners" and "losers" should be eliminated so no one can be better than anyone else. As a child, I read a science fiction story about a future where everyone was reduced to the lowest common denominator by law. The main character, a genius, had electrodes implanted in his brain in order to interrupt his train of thought every few seconds, so he couldn't think better than anyone else. He fell in love with a dancer who was forced to wear ungainly leg and arm weights so she wouldn't be more graceful than anyone else. That story gave me nightmares. I didn't know it at the time, but the author (whose name I've forgotten) was describing the perfect Liberal world. At the same time one believes everyone is the same, one must also encourage them to express their individuality, or "celebrate their diversity". How Liberals can believe that every person is equal in every way, yet has unique qualities, is the biggest mystery to me -- logic would dictate that it's one or the other. Moreover, Liberals believe that these unique qualities are shared in groups (which would make its members no longer unique -- sorry, logic again), and believe that every group is ALSO equal to every other while being unique at the same time. Note that Liberals aren't insisting all people should be TREATED equally -- a founding principle of our nation -- but that they ARE equal, which defies logic. Generally, this is done from the standpoint of victimhood. Liberals believe that everyone is a victim of the majority group (Rich White Straight Males) in some way, which actively prevents everyone from being equal. Poor people are victims of the Rich -- if it weren't for the Rich hoarding all those dollars, no one would be Poor. Black/Hispanic/Asian/Amerindian people are victims of the Whites. Women are victims of the Males, Gays are victims of the Straights. Victims, of course, are owed recompense by their oppressors. Recompense or restitution must be paid in two ways, Liberals insist -- Money and Privelege. If one is "lucky" enough to belong to an oppressed group, Rich White Straight Men owe him or her something. Money being self-explanatory, we'll move to Privelege.
Liberals feel that Privelege should be paid in different forms. One would think that preferential treatment might easily be paid to the Poor in terms of jobs, but that's not the Liberal solution. That would actually alleviate the problem, depriving them of power! No, the Rich can only help the Poor in purely monetary terms. Since (according to Liberals) the Rich are also White, Straight, and Male, the jobs they can offer should not go to the Poor, which might help them help themselves, but to non-Whites, non-Straights, and non-Males. Instead of helping the Poor to better their condition in a long-term way, the Liberals insist on short-term solutions for them. Nothing is preventing those non-Whites, non-Straights and non-Males from getting jobs, but they must be given preferential treatment they don't need! In fact, they should get jobs even if they cannot perform them well, which harms the company they work for, which reduces the number of jobs the company can offer and the amount of money the Rich can give the Poor! The Liberals call this "Affirmative Action", but its effects are generally negative.
To be a Liberal, one must believe that Segregation and Exclusion are bad, and that Segregation and Exclusion are also good. Any of the "oppressed" groups can exclude Straight White Males (part of the "Privelege" they are "owed"), but for SWMs to exclude anyone at all is the worst form of oppression. One can have, for instance, a Miss Black America competition or a Miss Latina USA pageant (funded by private groups) in which Whites cannot compete, but not an all-White private golf course, or even exclude Hispanic women from competing for the title of Miss America (also funded by private groups) on the grounds that they have their own separate pageant! Every ethnic and ideological group is given special treatment except Straight White Males -- who supposedly have all the power. Here's a prime example... The Harvey Milk High School in New York City is about to become big news around the country. Founded in 1984 as a private school, it's about to go public, and will soon recieve its first Senatorial visit (from Hillary Clinton, of course). Last year, the school received a huge budgetary increase and is tripling its enrollment. 3.2 million taxpayer dollars are being spent on renovation and expansion. For a public school, that's all excellent news, isn't it?
The reason WHY this will be such a big news story, and why I'm so unimpressed by it, is that the Harvey Milk High School is exclusively gay. They openly and purposefully exclude straight students. The students are all gay, the teachers are gay, the curriculum teaches "from a gay perspective". (I'm using the term "gay" here to cover the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth (LGBTQ)" the school caters to.) The principal of the school has not been hired by the NYC school board, but by a private gay advocacy group, the Hetrick-Martin Institute, in an unusual move for a public school (to say the LEAST).
Let's reverse the scenario for a minute and imagine the nuclear explosion of outrage we'd hear from the Left. Let's find a private school that openly admits only heterosexuals. Gays will be barred from teaching at or attending. (If you can find a school like that in America, the FBI has a career waiting for you!.) Let's turn the school into a public institution funded by the government, and spend several million taxpayer dollars expanding and refurbishing it. We'll have a private vehemently anti-gay group like The American Family Association run the school, and choose the principal. No gays will be allowed, remember, at our public school. The curriculum will teach strictly from a "heterosexual perspective", whatever that is. The Liberals in this country would suffer a meltdown before the first day of classes. Should we allow a public school to be run by the KKK? The National Rifle Association? I know -- how about a high school run by the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee? Wouldn't it be only fair to allow other private interest groups to run high schools? I can hear the Liberals spontaneously detonating in umbrage now.
So why are we expected to swallow this sort of openly
anti-Straight White Male bias with a smile? I wonder
why the standards the Left pretends to espouse
-- tolerance, desegregation, and fairness to "all" --
don't apply to US. Liberals should not be
allowed to run a mass social engineering enterprise in
the heart of New York City at public expense. No one
will actually benefit from it -- certainly not
the misfits it will produce. How can they learn to get
along in a society they are insulated from?