Last time, I spoke about the underlying mentalities of each political party and the definition of The Rule of Liberal Politics. In this post, I’d like to expound on the unity of liberal politics and why it is also hurting people.
To begin, I need alittle background.
You know what the great irony is of promoting something? You have to step on something else. If you promote one person, you step on someone else. If you promote the majority, you step on the minority. The converse is also true. If you promote the minority, you step on the majority. It would seem there is no way around it… or at least that’s the case if you think in terms of dichotomies.
Incidentally, it’s quite possible to promote something without stepping – or at least, not too hard – on the opposition. But people join advocacy groups to fight, and that always implies an oppressor.
For liberals, it’s the “white male dominance” and everything they stand for, which now includes the standard mentality for males, regardless of whether such males might fall closer to liberals in ideals. Case in point: James D’Amore.
The James D’Amore Case
James D’amore was an employee at Google before being fired over a controversial memo. Actually, all he did was submit the memo for review, and it got passed along through the system. As a fact, D’amore didn’t intentionally do what he thought was bad, but what he did was commit a cardinal sin in the liberal camp: suggest the possibility of white male dominance (in prevalence/numbers, not oppression, but the latter is associated with the former in liberal politics because majority=oppression). This is the very thing the liberal camp is trying to fight.
The news railed D’amore for bringing up “phony science”, even though they never presented real science to the contrary. D’amore’s points are all well-thought, and I’ll argue in favor of some later, but the vocal voices of the liberal party aren’t interested in science unless it promotes their ideas.
D’amore was and is a clever individual, and Google didn’t hire him for being a dummy. D’amore the software engineer was sadly “let go”; D’amore the heretic was shown the door.
The opposition to “white male dominance” stems from the opposition to the common attributes of the American household during the late 50s and 60s: fair-skinned, multi-child, husband-led, Protestant Christian, and usually bigoted towards dark-skinned people. The baby-boomers thought their parent’s were detestable individuals and rebelled, arguing against the Korean War and preference towards people of Western European descent. Then after awhile, these oppositions got stretched to include anything their parents represented in its abstract form, and the Democratic party embraced them. They become anti-war, anti-traditional-family, and anti-fair-skinned people. As new issues arose in the modern era, the stretching led to a platform of “pro-immigrant”, pro-“friends-are-family”, and “pro-minority”. The borders of inclusiveness kept growing. But if one such establishment can be questioned, then all can be. The fight thus included the gay and lesbian movement, abortionists, druids (now called “environmentalists” or “tree huggers” by conservatives), and anyone else whose ideas opposed the “establishment” at the time. Now that the old establishment has been dismantled, the fight is simply titled “liberal” vs “conservative”.
All of the people involved had, at one point, some disagreement with the majority. Consequently, the minorities rallied around the opposing political party to the majority. This left behind many of the original minorities that had composed the Democratic party. This led to the Republic president Ronald Reagan stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic party; the Democratic party left me.” It also explains why some say James D’amore thinks like an “Old Democrat”.
Subnote on Religion
Liberals are not anti-religious. In fact, they can be very religious. What they are against is the establishment, which is Protestant Christian but has also come to mean “organized religion”.
Many liberals are Catholic or ex-catholic, especially since Catholic church teaching emphasizes social welfare, social justice, and social equality (which I’ll get to in a moment). More important historically, Catholicism was never dominant in the United States (it is a minority) and culturally has shown to be flexible. And being led by men, the Catholic church appears like it should be modifiable. What has surprised liberals is that, after all the dust has settled, Catholicism is siding more and more with conservatives. The real reason for this is not because Catholic social teaching has changed but because liberals are moving away from the Catholic church’s teaching, accepting stances like abortion and “homosexuality” – a platform liberals must accept as liberalism evolves but things the Catholic Church has never changed its opinion on.
The Agreement of Liberals
So how do liberals see unity?
In my previous article, I explained why Thinker-type personalities have trouble in a liberal context. So why are some of them there in the first place? How did Silicon Valley – a place dominated by fair-skinned males – come to be a hive of liberal propaganda? What do moguls in Brooklyn share in common with gays in San Francisco?
The short answer is that it comes from there being overlap in certain key ideals due to the ambiguity of such ideals. In actual implementation, there is no such overlap. That’s why conservatives – who are more practically-minded – proudly boast they have proposals while liberals cannot agree on anything. It’s not that conservatives are great because they have ideas nor do they necessarily have great ideas, but in the minds of these people who prioritize the need for some kind of concrete idea, having a proposal is better than not. If such a proposal is opposed to even one minority, however, liberals – by necessity – must be unified against that proposal.
But there is some kind of unity in liberalism – one that continues to call liberals back to the liberal party even when such people share nothing else in common with other liberals. Liberalism has three common objectives:
- Social justice.
- Social welfare.
- Social equality.
The details of these are hijacked by liberals themselves, but notably, these terms show up everywhere, which gives you some idea as to how important they are and how liberals appeal to each other.
Social justice is a tricky one to pinpoint. Everyone believes in justice. This particular justice refers to expected treatment. It’s quite ambiguous. For some time, I couldn’t figure out what “social justice workers” were after, but, as is the case with any truly liberal idea, there is no clear definition of an SJW. The fact is, people are trying to appeal to some innate sense of morality in people. But when you deny the foundation of humanitarianism – namely, the responsibility of humans towards other humans, as dictated by morality, handed to us through religion – you end up trying to appeal to a vague, meaningless feeling in your gut. Everyone has this sense of responsibility. In fact, I wrote about it almost five years ago in another post. The gist is simple: love your neighbor as yourself. But appealing to religion is anti-liberal to many liberals.
Social welfare is the belief that everyone should be supporting each other. That way, everyone has everything they need. Hence, liberals prefer socialism. It sounds great in theory. The problem conservatives always mock is that, as a government model, it has always failed (which, like it or not, is historically accurate). But as a social model, it is based on the false assumption of the goodness of humanity. Presumably, everyone is going to put in their fair share. In reality, people cheat the system, exploit each other, and live on food stamps instead of working. Liberals would do better if they promoted socialism as a social mentality – as in the case of Japan, where people trust in the support of each other – rather than as a government system.
Social equality refers to a kind of fairness whereby every minority receives the same treatment as the majority: equal say, equal pay, “equal opportunity”. This is how the entire liberal party works, and obviously, this isn’t going to gel well with the majority. This social equality does not mean “equality of persons”. It means “equality of groups”. Liberals see groups of people. Conservatives see persons. There is a two-fold reason for this. On the one hand, liberals believe in mutual cooperation, and many of them can abstract away the individuality of humans such that they love humanity and hate the individual. On the other hand, the majority (not necessarily conservatives) have noticed and called out differences of race, sex, etc and thus created the artificial groups by presuming people are “guilty/ugly/stupid by association”.
For as united as liberals are in these beliefs, all of them have arrived at these conclusions in different ways. Some of them have come to these conclusions because they felt the best whereas others came to these conclusions because they seemed to be the rational point of view.
Case in point: Empathy
There are certain personalities in society that are very accommodating because they are understanding. But these people are understanding for different reasons. Some are “understanding” in the sense that they are sympathetic; they legitimately understand others’ struggles because they have gone through those struggles themselves. Then there are those who are “understanding” in the sense that they are empathetic; they respond emotionally to others’ suffering but they are clueless as to what the other person is going through and why. There are also those who are “understanding” in the sense that they are “respectful”; they may not understand the point of view or suffering of people around them, but they understand their own suffering and are able to give other people their space.
You’ll find all three of these types of people everywhere. It has to do with character and experience, but some of it is based on a person’s natural personality. While the apparent conclusion might be the same for many cases, neither the reasoning for those conclusions NOR the actions in response to those conclusions may be the same.
For example, three people see a poor person, and all conclude they want to see the person in a better state. One person might blame family and friends, and thus tries to talk with the poor person about their personal history. The second person might blame society and thus suggests social reform and food stamps. The third person might suggest the person is at fault and thus acts “coldly”.
The only thing keeping liberals from identifying the differences in their reasoning or pointing out problems in their logic is the emotion-based rule that no one is allowed to talk about these things. That could and would be insulting. A problem could be an elephant in the room, but as you know, that makes it Republican. If you call out something perceived as negative, you belong to the other party – the enemy – and that makes you fair game for insult.
Liberals don’t want to be insulted or excluded from the group, so they are afraid of stepping out and saying anything that might offend someone. Other liberals know this, and thus the entire liberal party is dictated by fear. Shaming is used to keep liberals in line, and this same technique is being used on President Trump to absolutely no avail because Trump does not think like a liberal. He is an ENTJ, a practical person, and therefore prioritizes accomplishments above personal prestige.
It gets worse. Liberals read into things, knowing that people have unspoken intentions. This again can be pinned on the personality types (particularly being Introverted and Perceivers – see MBTI). Thus, to stamp out ANY form of anti-liberal mentality, they find it both necessary to have thought police (e.g. “hate crimes”) and be afraid of it (as evidenced by the book 1984).
The consequences of fear are vast. “Diversity” of opinions becomes an ideal but never an actuality because people are afraid of saying anything that differs from the collective whole. This is another reason anonymity (especially online, the biggest sounding board) is so important to liberals – it allows them to freely express ideas they can’t even share with friends. Liberals are not free.
Example: The Struggle in Love
Given the now vocal minorities of raped women, liberals have come to empathize. While the empathy for these women is a good thing, the instinctual nature of men to be attracted to women has no outlet because any motion towards wooing women is seen by liberals as being seduction with the intention of rape and is associated with conservatives, who are inundated with the practical personality types that are willing to call women “hot” and “ugly” despite what people think of them. Consequently, liberal men choose the internet as an outlet for their sexual drives, thus leading to an increase in pornography. Liberals are the most addicted to pornography.
Sadly, all this means that healthy relationships are very, very difficult to develop. First, there is no step-by-step guide for how to begin a relationship because such a guide would be exploited, feel stale, or kept secret. People of liberal-leaning personality types usually prefer to “fall into” (find themselves in) a relationship or use some digital means of starting one.
Second, healthy relationships do not develop because pornography objectifies the person, and this is emphasized worse in people of liberal-leaning personalities because they already think in terms of groups instead of individuals.
Objectification of the person is turning them into an object for one’s own utility (pleasure, satisfaction, labor) rather than seeing them as a human person – another window into the world like oneself, who has thoughts, cares, dreams, and emotions. Objectifying someone is selfish. It is the same mentality as slave owners.
Finally, pornography itself (instead of the person) becomes the target, and it is unsatisfying, thereby perpetuating the problem.
(Regarding the viewing of people, I wrote an article a number of years ago that is still very applicable.)
In accommodating people, honesty is thrown out the window. Liberals believe honesty is for the trustworthy and lies are for the enemy. I can’t stress this point enough because it is subconsciously highly influential. Liberals think they can trust other liberals, and thus, they trust the mainstream media (predominantly controlled by liberals) instead of the sources the media get their information from (which would be more accurate or at least raw info). Liberal leaders know this, and thus control the mainstream media as a means of propaganda and slinging mud at the opposition. But to liberals, lies belong to the enemy, so even if things aren’t true about the enemy, the liberals promoting such nonsense are forgivable.
Of course, if you are person who loves honesty, being a liberal actually hurts. As the fanaticism of liberals has increased, so too the propagation of lies has increased because all liberals are talking about is the opposition rather than their own internals.
Time for a specific case, but for that, you’ll have to wait for part 3. OH MY GOSH ANOTHER PART! CAN THIS GUY STOP?!!