Equality is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The egalitarian idea dominates the postmodern spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Equality.”
As yet, it is true, Egalitarianism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a realization of an equal society. In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigor and tenacity.
We are told by the intellectual establishment in the Western nations today that the best way to achieve this desired equality is to recognize and break down entrenched systems of privilege. In this context privilege is defined as:
“…a set of perceived advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess.”
“…any right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person or group beyond the advantages
The set of circumstances in which some people and groups enjoy advantages and benefits that others don’t is a serious obstacle to social equality. It must be addressed and remedied if we are to achieve a fair and just society. Of course the question of why such an egalitarian society is desirable in the first place is never asked or answered. Equality is simply one of the divine mysteries of postmodern liberalism and thus needs no explanation and will tolerate no questioning.
I have long been of the opinion that the basic narrative of Christianity, the cycle of paradise, fall and redemption followed by heaven on earth, contains something very basic to the Western soul. It is impossible to escape this narrative even if you consciously try. We find it reappearing in all current social and political movements. Environmentalists, Communists, Libertarians and Anarchists all promote a narrative that follows this basic structure. Indeed, it is so pervasive that if we were to encounter a movement that did not pitch this narrative we would ask ourselves what would be the point of getting involved.
Without struggle, without wanting, life is meaningless. Without the idea that we are ultimately serving a higher purpose and achieving something beyond ourselves for the sake of other people, life is empty. We become just bags of gas (penis attachment optional) that require an occasional chemical energy boost to keep functioning. Even the most vulgar of atheists needs to live for something more than just pushing organic matter through his alimentary canal.
There is perhaps nothing more detestable and toxic in present day political discourse than the unwarranted arrogance and snarky attitude displayed by conventional liberals thoroughly convinced that their oh so enlightened social views are based on science. Apparently passing high school biology, watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and thumbing various Neil Degrasse Tyson memes on Facebook has lead these intellectual nobodies to believe that they are qualified to speak with authority on topics ranging from biological evolution to the proper application of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly the conclusion they draw from all this scientific expertise is that non-liberal political and social views are unscientific. What a shocker.
The hysterically pathetic irony of this world view is the blatant religiosity of it. Countless debates with “scientific” minded liberals and an examination of their beliefs have made it evident that this system of thought contains a soft, nuggety core of pure theology masquerading as “science” for outside observers. This illusion of intellectual authority is further reinforced by the adoption of a pedestrian form of “scientific atheism” that allows these liberals to fancy themselves as over and above those stupid Creationists. While theist notions of “science” such as intelligent design may be laughable, this paucity of intellectual credence does not work to elevate non-religious science by default. As we will examine, supposedly non-religious science is still warped by confirmation bias emanating from a clearly defined ideology that presupposes certain premises. Unlike most scientific methods of inquiry, liberal scientism starts with certain a priori universal assumptions, akin to religious values for atheistic liberals, which are then “proven” through deductive reasoning rather than inductive science.
What are these assumptions? Why, they are the same old spooks that we have been getting from self-styled progressives for the last century or so.
It is fascinating when radical feminists go so far with their narrative that they come all the way back around to what are essentially conservative positions on human sexuality. It is hilarious that they do not even realize how comparable their views are to puritanical religious views on sex and the nature of women. In the case of the radfem narrative on PIV (Penis-in-Vagina) sex they have come back around to a position that has roots in the worst of all evils from their point of view: Patriarchy and the accompanying notion that women are the property first of their fathers and then of their husbands. To the extent that their argument deviates from this it assumes that traditionally male gender roles are inherently superior, that motherhood is oppressive, and that most women are so stupid they have been tricked into wanting male companionship, sex and children.
The conservative position on abstinence mostly takes form today in the push for “abstinence-only until marriage” sex education in government schools and the phenomenon of virginity pledges taken by religious teenagers both male and female. But the notion of chastity and the expectation of premarital abstinence has deep cultural and religious roots. In a bygone era it was expected that a woman would be a virgin on her wedding day when her father would give her away to her new husband. This tradition was the result of various religious notions of chastity and female virtue as well as practical concerns about property, child-rearing, inheritance, family bonds, political alliances and so forth.
Tied into this tradition was the societal assumption that females are valuable to society because they are female. Interestingly this assumption leads to what would seem to be some very pro-female and even proto-feminist notions. Female bodies tend to be physically weaker and require protection because they are the carriers of the next generation. Therefore violence against women is not only wrong, it is more wrong than violence against men. A man wants his wife to be a virgin when he marries her because female sexuality is valuable and precious, not cheap and tawdry. Thus a father seeks to protect his daughter from unsavory men and preserve her for a worthy suitor. Perhaps these ideas have been so marginalized since the death of God that radfems have forgotten they ever existed in the first place, and are thus not aware of the hilarious irony of their sexual puritanism. Mainstream liberalism has discarded these notions altogether.
Occasionally an incident occurs that lays bare how truly absurd postmodern society is. Such incidents are notable not for their grand scope and sweeping narrative, but for their drab pettiness. Disasters, tragedies, mass casualty terror attacks and wars do not reveal any fundamental truths about our society We are too far removed from those sorts of things for them to be real. No, it is rather in events that are shabby and frivolous that we see our culture reflected.
The recent media controversy that has been labeled “The PyCon Incident” or even “Donglegate” (see what I mean about frivolity) is one such event. To summarize: a woman attending a male dominated software conference overheard some remarks that she claims she found offensive, took a picture of the male offenders, posted it online along with an accusation, got one of them fired from his job and then was herself fired in the ensuing backlash. This whole scenario is absurd and contemptible, yet such things are inevitable given the toxic nature of the postmodern social environment.
“If you want to see Libertarians go full retard, compare them to Marxists.” –Bulbasaur
If you are like me and you have spent more time than is probably healthy in libertarian political and intellectual circles you have probably taken note of various irritiating and often ironic trends peculiar to the milieu. One such trend is the tendency of libertarian activists and fellow travelers to be converts from the left. They didn’t start as libertarians and they likely will not die libertarians. Some people stay libertarian for their entire political lives, but considering the intellectual dead end of libertarian ethical constructs like the NAP, these types inevitably become pedantic, tedious bores that perseverate on the same dumbed down talking points while hawking cheap, kitschy merchandise to the latest class of noobs as they roll in. Most libertarians came to the movement from some other radical community. They are usually more than happy to share the story of their ideological journey into the light if you ask them nicely. Most of these stories, mine included, start with Marxism.
When I first saw media coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) a few years ago my first reaction was “LOLWUT”. My next reaction was that it had to be a troll. I found it so hard to take seriously because the the WBC represents in pure concentrated form every leftist conceit about the nature of their non-opposition. They are white, rural, religious and openly bigotted against the most celebrated victim group of the moment.
I am not going to condemn or defend the WBC. I find them mildly amusing, but beyond that I am indifferent. What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picure? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there.