Of GQ's Lack Of Civility And Rand Paul

Of the many bad habits formed by progressives over time, few can be more dishonourable than taking up victim blaming.

They've taken to incorporating into their world view basic tenets that generally were taught

And so it is whenever they attempt to justify an act of violence.

By now, an article in GQ has made waves less for its intellectual prowess (which makes it the norm unfortunately) and more for its sloppy sophistry.

In a nutshell, the author suggested since Paul is an asshole who refused to abide by established rules of his neighbourhood he deserved to be beat up (six broken ribs is a little more serious than the author cared to admit) and took the opportunity to attack the concept of private property among libertarians and sell it as if there's but one prevailing accepted view on the issue.

Unlike progressives, libertarians differ and vary enormously on their opinions and thoughts on subjects like abortion, the rule of law, gun control, immigration and border security, war and of course, private property. It's what attracted me to their vibrant ranks.

Libertarianism is alive with debate. Sometimes civil, sometimes nasty. But it's all in the interest of advancing the principles of liberty and the sovereign individual.

Libertarians suffer no naive on human nature despite what progressives claim. In fact, it's the progressive position that's not only naive but simply not conducive the human spirit. Force is what drives progressivism. And why people are attracted to it is precisely because it offers the chance to control other human beings using the full force of the state to compel people to conform to their ideas and ideals.

Progressivism is static. It hasn't evolved and lazily rests upon its record refusing to examine the results of their actions. Theirs is a defensive posture sitting perched as though eating grapes while swatting all criticism as if they hold a 'natural understanding' and rational outlook on humanity.

And so you know what you're getting with progressivism.

Not so much with libertarians. Which probably is why it was never able to codify its principles into a cemented ideology. That's a good thing because it permits them to remain principled.

On this point, after years of reading conservative, liberal, progressive and libertarian sites - libertarians are by far the most eclectic, consistently logical and principled group.

Conservatives and liberals (what's left of them) are second and progressives trail by a country mile.

Progressivism is not the politics of reason. It's the politics of illiberalism laced with emotional jargon. It's more about principals and not principles. That way, it's much easier to bash Western culture and its imperial, anti-gay, misogynistic and racist culture while closing a blind eye to the Arab Muslim world where women have less freedom than they do in the West and gays are routinely murdered thanks to an archaic and rigid code of law and religion. It leaves them open to all sorts of contradictions and even hypocrisy. Worse, as they rail they often lack any self-awareness.

To get back to the GQ article, - as I read along - it was clear the author (Moore I believe his family name is) never bothered to take the time to investigate libertarianism (which really, has classical liberal roots so it's not that difficult). Why should he? It's much easier to make unsubstantiated claims while feigning intellectualism. Never mind we still don't know the full facts of the case.

It was, in other words, the usual act of projection so common among their ranks.

Instead of examining the facts of the case and how one man improperly assaulted another (a politician no less), they choose to rant around the periphery about how 'it was deserved'. The more coy will employ weasel phrases like 'to be sure' and go on to blame the victim.

Not only have I observed they refuse to acknowledge the simple axiom we all learned that it's never proper to attack someone (unless in self-defence of course), but they've increased their violent rhetoric as some idiot editor named Jeet at The New Republic did.

In their little, tired, irrelevant minds the calculus-wheel powered by a small rodent goes something like:

Rand Paul = libertarian = asshole = fair game for beating.

They don't wear their tough guy act well at all. In fact, they look and sound boorish. Exactly how you'd expect a spent ideology to react. That is, to lash out with reactionary screams.

If I come off a little strong or perhaps unfair against the progressive left I can all but say, then do something about the unhinged and uncouth behaviour I've seen since the election of Trump. It's not only absurd and childish, it's irresponsible.

It's a little ironic that a publication named 'Gentleman's Quarterly' would advocate  or make excuses  justifying aggression.

Not very gentleman like.

Or manly for that matter.

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.