Social Justice Warrior don't want to be be confused by the facts because facts are not necessary when implementing Social Justice Warrior policies and programs.This Social Justice Warrior narrative is designed to cover up the falsehood of the first and second narratives. This is the way liberals work.., serving up propaganda intended to benefit Social Justice Warrior, but which in its absurdity repels people grounded in reality
Monday, December 30, 2013
Liberals Are Control Freaks
Liberals / Progressives / (most) Democrats are control freaks. It’s the one characteristic at the core of everything they do and say. Control over others’ lives is the primordial principle that inexorably drives them in politics and in their personal lives.
They can’t afford to be too obvious about it, because nobody likes a control freak, especially control freaks. They must conceal their ulterior motive at all costs. They disguise and camouflage it with affected nobility, piety, sympathy, compassion, and the selfless desire to help others (whether they want that help or not).
An appurtenance to that ineluctable drive is the superior intelligence that makes their efforts necessary and appropriate. They are simply smarter than everybody else, and therefore it is incumbent upon them to treat others as children who don’t always know what’s best for them and must be taught to obey at all times. If Americans are the world’s police, progressives are the world’s mothers.
One obvious example is Michelle Obama’s determination to dictate what school children eat. She decides on the best menu for school lunches and forces schools to adopt her scheme. When schools lose money because it doesn’t work, or when kids simply throw the food away instead of eating it, it never occurs to Michelle Obama that maybe her approach is not a wise one. She knows best, and that is not up for debate. The problem must be that others are being foolish, or they don’t understand her.
There’s another glaring example. During the Civil War, the North wasn’t fighting for any overriding principle or noble cause. They went to war because the South defied their wishes. Period. It wasn’t about slavery, although the North eventually portrayed it as a compassionate move to free slaves. (Truth is irrelevant to liberals. All that matters is that they win, and that they present themselves in the best possible light, whether that involves deception or not.)
Although Abraham Lincoln was a Republican president (the first, in fact), he was the most thoroughly progressive president in our history (even before we called it progressive). His generals were also thoroughly progressive. To them, such issues as the Constitution or States Rights had absolutely no bearing on their determination to force the South to comply with the North’s tariff policies. That’s what they wanted, and by God, that’s what they were going to get, whatever it took.
What it took was 650,000 American lives. What it took was the demolition of half the country. What it took was shredding the Constitution and proceeding as if it had never been written. Innocent, defenseless Southern women, children, old men, and blacks were burned, starved, robbed, and raped by the tens of thousands. The North wasn’t just trying to win the war, they were out for revenge. To them, secession was a personal insult, and they were obliged to teach those Rebs a lesson. They despised Southerners (regardless of age, gender, or color) with every cell in their Yankee bodies. Northern policy was one of Southern cultural genocide. They wanted Southerners exterminated (much as Hitler wanted Jews exterminated later), so that Yankees could move into the South and make it a proper (meaning Yankee) part of the Union. (This is all well documented in the North’s own official military records.)
I can’t help being nauseated today when I see progressives (or anyone) wringing their hands over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Assad is the devil incarnate for using chemical weapons in war, while Abraham Lincoln is venerated for killing far more people (fellow Americans) in no less barbaric fashion (burning, starving, slaughtering, etc).
At least Assad is ostensibly trying to preserve his control over his country, forced to fight against people who also want to control Syria. Lincoln didn’t have that sort of problem. The South didn’t want to take over America. They posed no threat to Lincoln. They just wanted to go their separate way. Just as the colonies did in the 18th century. The South had the same right to secede that the Patriots had to separate from England. And nobody understood that better than Abraham Lincoln. He just didn’t care. Because his inner control freak nature was not to be denied. He was a big government guy with big government plans, and once he finagled his way into power he was not about to let those damned rebels spoil his fun.
You might have gotten the impression that liberals are generally opposed to war, while conservatives tend to be the hawks in foreign affairs. But Democrat presidents have been behind most of our modern wars. Wilson in WWI. FDR in WWII. Truman in Korea. JFK and LBJ in Viet Nam. Clinton got in a few military licks, too. So, what is their overriding foreign policy that makes those wars necessary and righteous, while the Iraq war was decidedly unacceptable? I’ve never heard a coherent explanation of liberal foreign policy principles. But it is all consistent with their control freak nature. They aren’t content to control the lives of their fellow Americans. They want to control everybody in the world. And they insist on being the ones who dictate where, when, and how that might involve military action.
One more example. Most liberals aren’t intelligent or clever enough to handle themselves well in open, honest debate. So most of them don’t even try. Those who do typically resort quickly to name-calling and insults, because they don’t have the facts to back up their position, or they are simply incapable of presenting their case coherently and convincingly.
The most glaring case in point is liberal reaction to the Tea Party. Unable to refute intelligently or persuasively the Tea Party goal of less and smaller federal government, liberals immediately resorted to charges of racism, which were absurd. Democrat leaders went so far as to stage an incident which was intended to demonstrate Tea Party (and Republican / conservative in general) racist attitudes. But it was so phony that even liberals weren’t buying it.
But if the racist epithet didn’t work, liberals could always resort to calling Tea Party membersteabaggers. Which was the adult liberal equivalent of a child’s charge of “doo-doo head!”. By the way, it is interesting to note that most Tea Party members didn’t even know what that meant at first. But, of course, liberals didn’t need anyone to draw them a picture. They were the experts on that subject.
But the favorite maneuver for liberals in dealing with anyone they dislike or disagree with is to just make them shut up. They have been trying for years to shut down conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel. Liberals say they are all for free speech, but only if they are the ones speaking freely. Others must be silenced. They tried their own talk radio, but it fizzled. They can’t compete in the marketplace of political ideas and debate, so they do everything in their power to make sure theirs is the only voice heard. (Lincoln did the same thing, shutting down every Northern newspaper that didn’t enthusiastically support him and his policies. The First Amendment? Sure. Just try to enforce it! See how fast your printing press is destroyed!)
Not all liberals are control freaks (I suspect). And not all control freaks are liberals (I suspect). But there is a strong and readily apparent correlation. I can think of one bright, shining exception to the rule. He and I disagree on most things in politics and religion, but I find him honest, extremely intelligent, eloquent, definitely worth listening to, and a pleasure to debate with. He is the exception that proves the rule.