Someone forwarded an article titled "The Culture Of The Smug White Liberal".
It's always interesting to read liberals come to some sort of epiphany already made obvious to others. It's like they live in a shell and when they come out realize 'this is not Pismo beach!'
Moreover, it's immensely startling - despite the fact the author pretty much admitted progressivism (there is no liberalism in the modern Democrat party; just progressive paternalism) has destroyed not just the black community but communities at large - is every single thing she asserts in the article has been already discussed by conservatives (in publications like NRO and The New Criterion), thinkers like Parker, Williams, Friedman and Sowell and, of course (take a bow) libertarians (particularly where gay rights are concerned. The Democrats weren't ahead of that curve and neither is Obama) for decades.
Because of this head start, I believe they've come to be more thought-provoking and refined in their criticisms and are far more adept and willing to offer alternative solutions since they've already identified the problems mentioned in the article. As such, progressives are so behind the curve, they're obsolete and don't even know it.
Ever notice how utterly banal, boring and predictable their *solutions* or interpretations to social, economic (whatever) ills are? It always seems to add up to 'more taxes' or 'more regulations' or calls for more restrictions (e.g censorship) on personal liberties.
Yet, this sort of epiphany is not getting traction for some odd reason. It's hard to truly educate and offer differing views when companies like Google, Apple and Facebook actively suppress free speech by playing censorship games where conservative and libertarian view points are concerned.
Rather, they're taken to uproot, rewrite, and deny history. Stuff like 'The Republicans were liberals!' and 'the right to bear arms means militia!' and 'up is down and down is up!' Then they turn around and quietly wreck the black family by removing choice, espouse eugenics, prolong the depression and continue to create prohibitionist laws to this day (if not alcohol, go after e-cigarettes or sugar or soda for whatever bull shit reason they come up with (ie obesity, climate change etc.).
Um, who are the real 'extremists' again?
***
Small excerpt:
"Suggesting that blacks stop being Democrats or Liberals would be a waste of my time, but what I am suggesting is that we require white liberals to do more than pat us on the head and tell us they know better."
Actually, yes. You should stop being Democrats or NDP/Liberals. They're not liberals - they're progressives. The latter holds not a skeptical view of humanity with a tinge of envy but a highly cynical outlook that demands the government involve itself in almost all matters as managers of our vices and virtues.
The entire progressive structure relies on 'panels of experts' and academics to command in a heavy top-bottom approach fully backed by state power (ie violence).
Progressives are just, pretty much, Marxists by other means.
Liberalism is dead to the extent modern progressives claiming lineage, as I've read once too many times, to The Enlightenment is preposterous.
But classical liberalism and the heritage of The Enlightenment lives in the libertarian ranks.
***
I mentioned deniers of reality.
The left only accept their conception of reality and what they face in the present. They talk of posterity but don't seem to recognize they're demands 'of now' only wreck the future.
Take debt for example. I can't think of a more perfect subject than debt (and banking) that epitomizes the shallow depths of their thoughts on the subject.
Debt is an abstract thought to them in the sense they rack up the debt and then realize they can't repay it ergo they come up with all sorts of arguments trying to convince it's actually good for society to eradicate the debt they incurred of free will.
Free will to charge the card, but greater good to pay for it if you prefer.
Time and again they reveal it's less about the community and collective and always about their personal needs.
In a sense, a debt is 'abstract'. But that existential outlook quickly ends when the person on the other side whom the debt is owed has to face the reality.
Debt finances many things from pensions to homes. Big ticket items are often funded with debt. You just have to make sure you can cover the principal plus the interest rate. It's not a complicated transaction. It only becomes complicated when you don't want to pay it.
So if government or banks were to forgive their debt (an instrument that can be traded. Think bonds. Oh, don't bother explaining the difference between a secured/unsecured bond or callables. That's of little interest to them) it doesn't just disappear. They seem to have some vague idea that banks are profits = gambling schemes.
Someone, somewhere is going to pay for it thus driving the cost of loans to sky rocket. And when that happens, guess what? It's that much harder to buy a car or a home. How? The cost I'm referring to comes in the form of interest and money down. In other words, the lender will ask for 80% of the purchase price while the cost of borrowing goes, for example, from 3% to 10%. And when that happens, their screams for government intervention will intensify.
You can't just 'erase' debt without it having a massive, unseen impact on someone else. And when that impact hits, it shouldn't be left to the government to step in.
Alas, it's all about them. Ironic, no? Given their ideology of the collective that is.
It's always interesting to read liberals come to some sort of epiphany already made obvious to others. It's like they live in a shell and when they come out realize 'this is not Pismo beach!'
Moreover, it's immensely startling - despite the fact the author pretty much admitted progressivism (there is no liberalism in the modern Democrat party; just progressive paternalism) has destroyed not just the black community but communities at large - is every single thing she asserts in the article has been already discussed by conservatives (in publications like NRO and The New Criterion), thinkers like Parker, Williams, Friedman and Sowell and, of course (take a bow) libertarians (particularly where gay rights are concerned. The Democrats weren't ahead of that curve and neither is Obama) for decades.
Because of this head start, I believe they've come to be more thought-provoking and refined in their criticisms and are far more adept and willing to offer alternative solutions since they've already identified the problems mentioned in the article. As such, progressives are so behind the curve, they're obsolete and don't even know it.
Ever notice how utterly banal, boring and predictable their *solutions* or interpretations to social, economic (whatever) ills are? It always seems to add up to 'more taxes' or 'more regulations' or calls for more restrictions (e.g censorship) on personal liberties.
Yet, this sort of epiphany is not getting traction for some odd reason. It's hard to truly educate and offer differing views when companies like Google, Apple and Facebook actively suppress free speech by playing censorship games where conservative and libertarian view points are concerned.
Rather, they're taken to uproot, rewrite, and deny history. Stuff like 'The Republicans were liberals!' and 'the right to bear arms means militia!' and 'up is down and down is up!' Then they turn around and quietly wreck the black family by removing choice, espouse eugenics, prolong the depression and continue to create prohibitionist laws to this day (if not alcohol, go after e-cigarettes or sugar or soda for whatever bull shit reason they come up with (ie obesity, climate change etc.).
Um, who are the real 'extremists' again?
***
Small excerpt:
"Suggesting that blacks stop being Democrats or Liberals would be a waste of my time, but what I am suggesting is that we require white liberals to do more than pat us on the head and tell us they know better."
Actually, yes. You should stop being Democrats or NDP/Liberals. They're not liberals - they're progressives. The latter holds not a skeptical view of humanity with a tinge of envy but a highly cynical outlook that demands the government involve itself in almost all matters as managers of our vices and virtues.
The entire progressive structure relies on 'panels of experts' and academics to command in a heavy top-bottom approach fully backed by state power (ie violence).
Progressives are just, pretty much, Marxists by other means.
Liberalism is dead to the extent modern progressives claiming lineage, as I've read once too many times, to The Enlightenment is preposterous.
But classical liberalism and the heritage of The Enlightenment lives in the libertarian ranks.
***
I mentioned deniers of reality.
The left only accept their conception of reality and what they face in the present. They talk of posterity but don't seem to recognize they're demands 'of now' only wreck the future.
Take debt for example. I can't think of a more perfect subject than debt (and banking) that epitomizes the shallow depths of their thoughts on the subject.
Debt is an abstract thought to them in the sense they rack up the debt and then realize they can't repay it ergo they come up with all sorts of arguments trying to convince it's actually good for society to eradicate the debt they incurred of free will.
Free will to charge the card, but greater good to pay for it if you prefer.
Time and again they reveal it's less about the community and collective and always about their personal needs.
In a sense, a debt is 'abstract'. But that existential outlook quickly ends when the person on the other side whom the debt is owed has to face the reality.
Debt finances many things from pensions to homes. Big ticket items are often funded with debt. You just have to make sure you can cover the principal plus the interest rate. It's not a complicated transaction. It only becomes complicated when you don't want to pay it.
So if government or banks were to forgive their debt (an instrument that can be traded. Think bonds. Oh, don't bother explaining the difference between a secured/unsecured bond or callables. That's of little interest to them) it doesn't just disappear. They seem to have some vague idea that banks are profits = gambling schemes.
Someone, somewhere is going to pay for it thus driving the cost of loans to sky rocket. And when that happens, guess what? It's that much harder to buy a car or a home. How? The cost I'm referring to comes in the form of interest and money down. In other words, the lender will ask for 80% of the purchase price while the cost of borrowing goes, for example, from 3% to 10%. And when that happens, their screams for government intervention will intensify.
You can't just 'erase' debt without it having a massive, unseen impact on someone else. And when that impact hits, it shouldn't be left to the government to step in.
Alas, it's all about them. Ironic, no? Given their ideology of the collective that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.