If you're a regular reader you know I've posted a few pieces on co-opted movements and methods of control. If not, go back and read them you fuck! Honestly it's been a struggle not come across as a nut trying to convince people the illuminati are controlling us with gay frogs. I think I'm going to fail today.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment