We have seen the future, and it sucks.

To Confront an Enemy, You Must First Define the Enemy

24th December 2012

Freeberg once again brings up an important question. (He does that a lot.)

As I’ve observed before about liberalism: The irony of it is, they want to make an egalitarian world, one in which every cog is in place and spinning smoothly, producing effects that are equally beneficial for everybody concerned, in which everybody has a voice. But on the way to that plane of perfection, they are curiously obsessed, at the perceptible expense of the attention they can pay to all other things, with figuring out who should not have a say in how it all works. Show me ten pages written by liberals and I can show you eight or more pages that are nothing more than “so-and-so needs to be shown the door so us smarty-pants types can finish drawing up our plans.” For egalitarians, they are curiously captivated with the idea of the few unilaterally dictating the tastes and obligations of the many.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the left is that anyone who is not of the left is automatically an enemy, not just wrong but malevolent and malignant. ‘We know we’re right, because we’re the smartest people in the room; you’re either too stupid to be of any account or you know we’re right, too, and are therefore evil to oppose us.’

Out of all the destructive statements we are somehow obliged to avoid viewing in any way as destructive statements, one of my favorites has long been: “These rules are put into effect in order to foster/create a work environment that is safe and non-threatening to everyone…it is also important to keep in mind that in evaluating a gesture or statement as potential sexual harassment, the intent of the person making the gesture is entirely irrelevant, the perception of the offended person decides everything.” Holy shit. Perhaps there is some other written statement, equally concise, that would be more effective in making the work environment threatening. But I honestly cannot think of what that might be. And the double-speak involved in here is something that could only be produced by lawyers looking for ways to produce new revenue. It completely blows my mind, and it’s not just me, all men can see what’s wrong with this, along with not too few common-sense women as well. And yet, the ritual endures…because, and only because, some among us toil under an obligation to avoid acknowledging, let alone defending ourselves from, enemies.

Any environment in which one must always be on guard that something one says or does might be ‘suspicious’ under some standard that is unknowable in advance is functionally indistinguishable from living in a police state. America is rapidly approaching that condition.

Comments are closed.