The most popular sport these days is liberal-bashing, and it is the actions of the liberals themselves that is making them an easy target. However, it is not all right to simply dismiss their concerns simply because they have been wrapped up in asinine packaging. Yes, it is like having to dig through vomit bare-handed in order to get to the legitimate concern, but it must be done before dismissing it all as paranoid nonsense. Anyone calling themselves a scholar, or any sort of researcher, must look at the whole argument before ridiculing it. Sadly, I have seen a number of such individuals doing just that: jumping on the ‘ridicule-the-SJWs’ bandwagon. Some of them even hold chairs at universities.
They should know better, and it says a lot about academic thinking that they don’t.
I will admit, even I don’t believe that many of the SJWs having meltdowns over things people normally take in stride is in any way normal, or that these people can even be considered ‘normal’ human beings. There is something extremely wrong with how they handle disappointment, and how they relate to others, yet that does not mean there is no validity to their concerns. When they are shrieking about the then candidate Donald Trump disrespecting womanhood, the concern at the core is the fact that he is backed by conservative and far-right interests that do not respect a woman’s right to live her life as she sees fit. When they scream ‘nazi’, they are expressing concern over the willingness that they see on the right to give over personal freedoms to an authoritarian ‘volkish’ state, and so on… .
Initially, it may have seemed that the concerns were stupid. Yet now, it seems that they may have been dead-on. The right is, indeed, taking on the ugly overtones that characterized Nazism. Anyone who comes from a family that actually experienced daily life in Europe at that time has probably been trained by their parents to recognize the warning signs – and I am not talking about people from Jewish backgrounds when I say that. I am talking about Germans from German backgrounds, Italians from Italian backgrounds, French from French backgrounds, etc… . We know the signs, and we have concerns. The insanity of the ‘lunatic left’ is doing damage to the credibility of people who see what is coming, but that does not change the fact that there is something to be concerned about.
I will say this to the far-/alt-right: you romanticize the rise of the right, and the nationalist state. It was not like you picture in your rosy day-dreams. People were not free to live their lives in volkish-communities, and women were not happily baking cherry pies for their eight children. That is bull-piss and poppy-cock.
To the ‘classical liberals’ who have joined with the far-/alt-right, Pastor Martin Niemoller had this to say to you:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Is the temporary applause from your new bed-partners worth what you’re ushering in? You who are Jews, homosexuals, and women? I say this because something big is coming, and you will be the first ones in line to feel its hatred. The applause will stop and you will be quickly discarded.
Liberal hysteria explained to the ignorant
Liberals, sadly, allow their emotions to overtake their capacity for reason. Nobody should be completely without empathy, however the SJWs and feminists out there have taken things to levels beyond the galactic. I will now explain why this happens, and how, despite the claims of the conservative right to the contrary, the right suffers from the same blind-spots.
I am going to illustrate this with a real case: A woman stabs her husband to death. During the course of the stabbing-spree, she pauses to tie him up and put her children to bed. That done, she returns and continues to stab him. By the time she is finished, she has stabbed him a total of 193 times, including slicing at his penis. She claims she is a battered woman, and her actions were in terrorized self-defense.
Believe it or not, once the woman in question played the battered-woman card, people, mainly other women, jumped to her defense. They claimed, and still claim, her actions were clearly those of someone who was terrified. They think the jury in the case was wrong to convict her.
This is a prime example of the skillful use of the victim card. Whether it can be attributed to a desire to abdicate personal responsibility, or simply suffering from bleeding hearts, the left loves nothing more than standing up for a perceived a victim. Frame the crime in the proper terms, and they will see even the most sadistic of murderers in a sympathetic light. All that is needed is to is to come up with a half justifiable reason and a sympathetic-seeming victim, and you will have many a liberal rushing to that person’s defense. They mean well, and honestly try to see the good in everyone.
Liberals actively search for a victim in every scenario, or something else that mitigates the issue. Because of this, they will take a more sympathetic stance on even the most horrific things – such as terrorism. They feel terrorism is the result of the west bombing the shit out of helpless civilians abroad, and so it is something we have brought on ourselves and must be approached that way. It is not that they believe terrorists are good people, it just that they can see a reason why jihadists would be pissed off at us. They can therefore be manipulated fairly easily. Parade a photo-gallery of sad-eyed, injured women and children in front of them, and they will turn into oozing balls of putty.
By the same token, they can be easily provoked to outrage. Just show them pictures of the US army bombing innocent civilians, and they will become so outraged that their heads practically explode.
That said, the hard-hearted conservative right is not immune to this phenomenon, either. The primary difference between it and the left is who it perceives as the victim, and what it takes to cover someone’s sins. The right automatically looks for nobility and moral rectitude when balancing out someone’s shortcomings and justifying their acts. A person with the veneer of an upstanding citizen will always be forgiven, provided their accuser comes from a less palatable background.
We can take as an example someone who is considered a pillar of the community, perhaps a preacher or a president. This man happens to be a womanizer who carries on behind his long-suffering wife’s back, year after year. Everyone knows he is a serial adulterer, but that’s all right, he does good works, donates to charities, and he’s freakin’ all-around great guy – except for that one minor detail. He’s projecting the right image, framing his infidelities in the right way, as a family matter, and all is forgiven. He’s not held up to the moral compass, even when one of his lady-loves dies in circumstances that may be a drug overdose, or may be something else. Of course, this example is a composite picture, but I have to ask, why is the right so miffed at Clinton being a womanizing pig, while lauding JFK? Probably because JFK is their hero. But JFK treated women as obscenely as did Clinton. JFK even passed on Marilyn Monroe to his brother once he was done with her.
Now take that attitude into the current climate of world-wide terrorism. While the left gets hot under the collar seeing images of foreign women and children maimed and injured, the right has the same reaction when shown images of their own, ethnically and culturally, being maimed and injured. You can work them into the same state of hysteria by using the correct images. One, the left, has empathy with outsiders, while the other, the right, has empathy with members of their own clan.
Neither, as far as I can see, can put aside their biased emotional reactions long enough to address the actual issues of right and wrong. Neither has the capacity for the type of true empathy that justice requires. A man steals a loaf of bread because he is hungry, and the left demands forgiveness, while the right wants him strung up. The truth is, the man had limited options, no one would hire him, and he had no way to earn money to eat. But, the shopkeeper is also suffering from a loss. Maybe the he, himself, does not make enough profit to feed his family. Justice means helping the thief find a way to earn a living so that he can pay back the shopkeeper. That also means someone has to be found who is willing to hire him, and chopping his hand off is only going to make that an even more difficult task.
The sympathetic nature of the left has definitely gone too far at times, to the point of seeming insanity, but there is a genuine concern for others at its core in most cases. That people who claim to be scientifically minded dismiss that, without even questioning why the hornet’s nest has been so badly stirred up, only proves the very sad state our ‘intellectual’ and ‘scholarly’ communities have fallen into – and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of most of these people. It goes without saying that we need to take care of whose camp we choose to follow, because, put plainly, the vast majority of those claiming to be ‘intellectual’ and ‘scholarly’ these days are tiny emperors running around in non-existent clothing.