Sunday, September 6, 2015

"Liberalism", "Conservatism", and the playing of other men's games.

Greetings once again.  Today I will briefly address so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" as contemporarily defined by the much distorted terms "liberalism" and "conservatism".

I am a bit loathe to broach this subject on the terms upon which I plan, largely because I do not care for such words as "liberal" and "conservative" in this context.  They tend to paint very misleading pictures of reality, largely through the innuendo of the words themselves, much as do "left" and "right" in the context of political arguments.  The latter, for example, by purely oblique implication suggest that the salient structure of the so-called "political struggle" is one of a lateral nature along some spectral continuum, left generally painted as wanting to "burn that mutha down" and right usually represented as the "establishment", replete with its kamikaze death grip on the status quo, hatefully paranoid in their covetousness.  Even the most casual but competently applied scrutiny reveals the deeply fallacious and misleading nature of this way of viewing contention between groups of people.  And yet, so few on either side appear either able or willing to subject their paradigm to even the mildest honest analytical examination.  They are dug in for the duration, it appears, in a frighteningly massive plurality of "left" and "right".  I fear this will greatly aid in the undoing of humanity.  I believe it already has.

Sticking to the point of this essay, my reticence aside, it seems to me that the term "liberal" and what it actually means in real life practice, bears some of that scrutiny.  It needs to be exposed for the dangers that the common notion of the term seems to pose to all that is right and good about people.  It is in no way intended to let the so-called "conservative" off the hook, for his average self, too, carries significant guilt in his own rite.  While I find such people to be less of a threat than "liberals", it is a marginal difference at best and insufficient and largely irrelevant in any case.  

The first thing I will assert is that the so-called "liberal" has no love of actual liberty, but only of a very badly distorted notion of it. Proper human freedom frightens him endlessly, such that he rails against it like a child in a state of unbridled terror. There is no apparent upper brain function involved in his reactions and opinions; there is only a midbrain in operation, apparently gripped in irrational and morbid fear that falsely signals immediate and mortal danger at anything that resembles actual human freedom.  This is readily observable in their reactions to so-called "conservatives", for example, when the latter call for personal accountability in a general sense.  This riles the "liberal" endlessly because responsibility for one's actions IN A GENERAL MANNER is one of those things in which they appear to have no interest.  This is a very convoluted aspect of "liberalism", for the philosophy is not one of generally architected principles, but rather of very specifically contrived "values", seemingly designed not to bring about a state of general freedom for all men, but rather a narrowly defined chute through which to corral all men, while labeling it as "freedom".  Such irony.

The "conservative" is similarly fearing of real liberty, if to a lesser degree.  Many are religious zealots who would see their basic "values" imposed upon the rest.

The "liberal" vision is one of tightly managed living where people are disallowed the exercise of their basic human rights except those that are "approved" by so-called "government" or "the state";  that which meets any given day's specification for being "politically correct".  This is pure tyranny in the worst sense of the word, identical in its basic character to that of the Soviets and the Red Chinese who butchered in the neighborhood of 200 million people in about half a century's time.  Under the liberal utopia, no man is allowed an opinion that lies outside of the established boundaries of thought.  For this he would stand to be greatly "corrected" through means not unknown to the great and murderous tyrants of the twentieth century, whether it be shunning, reeducation facilities, prison, or even liquidation.  This is one of the respects where the "liberal" parts company widely with the "conservative", the latter being far less willing to visit such great harms upon those who do not agree with their specific values.  The "liberal" can be murderously vicious in his sentiments, which is very commonly observable every day, for example, on the many social media sites.  Sins are certainly committed on all fronts, but those who identify as "liberal" appear to me to take the cake in those terms, up to and including wishing death upon the innocent children of those who dare disagree with their views.  It is truly disturbing to witness, and leaves me wondering where the race of men is really headed.

The "conservative" vision is also tightly managed, though to a notably lesser degree.  But at the end of the day it is irrelevant because the result is the unauthorized circumscription of men's valid prerogatives to act.

The liberal appears to hate one thing above all else: generalized responsibility for himself - what he thinks, how he feels, and most saliently, what he does.  It requires no great feats of analytical prowess to reveal this truth about such people.  Why are they typically like this?  I cannot say for certain, but fear seems to play a part, as does avarice and a general state of personal corruption. None of that, mind you, is intentional.  The average man identifying as "liberal" seems to me to be very well intending, but their intentions are terribly misguided and their ire for all not of their ilk, extreme in its violence.

Liberalism, as currently mal-defined, strongly seems to be a mental disorder of some sort; a disease of perception, mainly, that appears to amplify everything in a man that is base, corrupt, and criminal, albeit unintentionally in my presumption. At the same time, it attenuates most of that which is noble and good in the human animal. It causes stupidity to be raised high upon the altar of worship and intelligence to be reviled, spat upon, and cast out, all the while labeling each as its diametric opposite.  Similarly, the "conservative" holds distorted notions of "decency" and is equally willing to impose his values upon those who do not share them.

The only way for the corrupt, cowardly, and criminally-leaning man to flourish as himself in the world of his fellow men is to drive them to the same state as his own, thereby making his kind the norm and the good man the outlier; the freak. This has been accomplished across much of the world, America sadly included in that set of altered places where nobility and faith to a valid standard of comportment has been all but openly criminalized.  This seems to indicate that there is some subpopulation of such people who, in their desire to freely exercise their perfidious predilections in a world that priorly rejected them, they have set out to gain acceptance, by hook or crook.  This work appears to be progressing swimmingly well.

Much like his "conservative" counterpart, the "liberal" is largely about "one-size-fits-all" (OSFA) politics, which in itself is not an error if contrived and applied properly.  But just as with his counterpart, the "liberal" chooses wrongly, acting at a level of conceptual abstraction where OSFA cannot function without the use of brute force, which is the first indication that something is amiss in one's political architecture.  The other is the fact that, despite the application of such force, people still fail to comport themselves in accord with that which you have imposed upon them.  They rebel, whether positively or passively.  Such is the world in which we now live - one where force is the cornerstone of life.  Such an arrangement cannot, in my opinion, endure over the longer term, and when it becomes entrenched like a cancerous growth in the life of a culture, when finally it fails, the history is clear on the nature of the failure: it is almost always blood-soaked in extreme violence.

Worse yet, the disease has spread into all corners of the culture, with all manner of others suckered into assuming the tenets of an enormously destructive political outlook. Consider the "gay community" as a prime example. Statistically speaking, those people drank the liberal koolaid and it has turned many of their numbers into monsters. Consider the issue of "normality" as it applies there. If one takes the time to look into a dictionary for "normal", the definition is clear: that which is common or greatly predominant, being the gist of the semantics.  But let me not work on memory.  Here's a typical definition from

conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; natural

Gays have, for at least 40 years, been going on in their efforts to convince the rest of the world that homosexuality is "normal".Being gay is NOT normal in that is NOT predominant.  As to whether it is "natural", who cares?  Since when is "natural" or "normal" required?  Are tattoos and body piercings "natural"?  Is dying one's hair?  Driving a car?  Fly aircraft, for pity's sake?  We humans do all manner of unnatural things, whatever "natural" might even mean in such cases.  "Naturalness" is a non-issue there, yet gay people commonly go on and on about how it is perfectly so, usually against people who will likely remain unconvinced.  They have accepted premises that have no bearing upon the broader questions at hand.  In doing this they have brought great harm to themselves.

So why, then, do the gays feel this apparently burning need to force the rest of the world to accept them as "normal" and "natural"?  I will submit that the reasons are not terribly relevant.  What is important, however, is the fact that such people have gone down a very bad path of reasoning and that they hurt themselves more than they help.  Why?  Precisely because they place themselves, their choices, their very freedom to be what they choose, at the mercy of considerations that have absolutely no authority in such questions.

Unfortunately, when you point out such things, many gays and other "liberals" get their undies in a great pinch, often responding with the standard drivel that includes the pointing of fingers as they cry "HATER!" and "HOMOPHOBE!!", as if those incantations were supposed to actually mean something. 

A truly significant point here is that those people are playing someone else's game - that of the progressive liberal. They are so busy trying to force others to regard them as "normal", they completely miss the fact that "normality" is NOT a requirement for living one's life as he pleases; it is not required of the FREE MAN.  Were it so, there would be no driving cars, flying planes, dying hair, tattoos, body piercings, or any of the other things that are not "natural", like wearing clothing.

Had these people chosen to exercise the presumably good brains with which Life has gifted them, they would have adopted the posture that says, "yeah, I'm not normal - so WHAT? What is it your point?", putting the ball right back into the court of their antagonist. But instead, they chose to adopt the defensive posture, as if their choice needed defending. Are you a free man or are you a chattel-dog? If the former, then you apologize to nobody for your rightful choices. If the latter, well... then you take on the qualities of the average example of your ilk, as found today in common observation; you take on at least some of the characteristics of the so-called "liberal". 

Playing another man's game is dicey business at best and a terrible trap at worst. All manner of groups have fallen for it, whether it's gays, women, blacks, and so on down a long line of "victim" groups. They have danced to the devil's music and now are in hock up to their eyeballs, with no apparent (to them) way out. They are now utterly vested in the positions they have held for a lifetime and either do not know how to get away or see no problems and refuse to divest themselves of mental landscapes that bring far more harm to oneself than benefit.  

The level of "social engineering" that goes on anymore is staggering, and people appear to be going for it in ever growing proportion and degree. If this does not frighten, then I must conclude that such a person is gone off the deep end.

Liberalism, just as with typical conservatism, ignores reality in favor of a feel-good fantasy of how the world works.  I will state clearly that liberals are far more guilty of this than conservatives, on the average, but both are "guilty enough".  The fundamentally free nature of men is ignored on a wholesale basis in favor of fantasy visions of a "perfect world" where everybody behaves themselves "properly" at all times and all is bunnies and light.  This is patently absurd, and dangerously unsound, particularly in an age of such technological advance that small cadres of men are capable of visiting untold and vast destruction upon entire nations with mere keystrokes and mouse-clicks.  It used to be a lot of work to butcher and entire city.  Not anymore.

And be clear once again that the "liberal" and the "conservative" are largely identical.  In the specifics, for example, the liberal would see vast harms put upon people who "hate on" those groups whom they deem somehow sacred, such as homosexual, blacks, and other such populations.  Yet they hypocritically "hate on" those who do that for which they have complaints.  The "conservative" would often see those using cannabis tossed into prison cells, or those purchasing the services of a prostitute.  Each is guilty enough.

What, then, is the upshot of all this?  Firstly, the recognition that modern progressive liberalism is indeed a disease of the mind whose ultimate result will be nothing good for the race of men.  Running amok through life with little requirement to adhere to a rational standard of behavior is not likely to end well for humanity.  Secondly, it should be recognized that liberalism as currently common among people is manipulation on a grand scale by forces not readily visible to the man who wishes not to see them.  This does not perforce imply a vast and evil conspiracy emanating from a secretive cabal - though that possibility should not be dismissed out of hand.  It may be nothing more than common human proclivity having taken a very wrong turn someplace along the line.  Whatever the cause and source, we do know that it is in fact a very wrong turn and that if we as a technologically advancing race are to survive our own progress, which places vast levers into the hands of individuals, we had better get ourselves squared up with practical reality.  I see no other way that we as a race of beings will survive ourselves and the insane stupidities that so many of us embrace as truth and virtue.

Likewise, the "conservative" seems often to think that his view of the world is the only one valid and that all men should be FORCED to toe his line.

Both are grossly misguided.

Liberalism will be a great factor in the extinction of the human race if we do not walk away from it, for it denies men their fundamental rights with ever growing viciousness and callous disregard for the very people it purports to serve.  Serving, what, exactly?  Common mistaken distortions of "conservatism", which vastly less dangerous in the immediate sense, is equally harmful in the longer run because it, too, unjustly corrals men and does so with no demonstrable authority beyond that of the gun.

We, the race of men, arguably need freedom now more than at any time in the past.  There IS an objectively derived, complete, and correct set of basic rules for determining one's envelope of prerogatives as a free man.  They can be found at this link: The Canon of Proper Human Relations   It is a work still somewhat in progress, but I submit that it is a very good start.  Please take the time to read it, for it is short and simply written in language that does not highly tax one's thoughts.  The basics of right and wrong should never do that.

Finally, let me be clear that nowhere here do I endeavor to disparage anyone, whether liberal, conservative, or any other labeling one might choose.  It is my sole intention to bring to light that which many appear to miss, that forest for the trees. The noise to signal ratio is VERY high these days.  No wonder people generally fail to see that which stares them directly in the eyes.  But one can learn to step back, to a higher plane so to speak, and attain a broader and more informationally sound view of things.  The first step is to realize that there is in fact a problem.  It is my hope that those of you of a "liberal" bent will take no umbrage; that you will consider with some cool of mind that which I have written here with the understanding that it is my objective to help you see beyond the trappings - the noises - of your political philosophy.

With that, I bid you all adieu.  

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.