The primary focus of my writing for the last 10 years has been debunking this shibboleth know as religion. Yes, I'm one of those despicable curs. But I have sensed in myself a paradigm change, in no small measure because I've inked everything I have to write about traditional western religion at this point.
One of my heroes, George Carlin, in the few years before he croaked, I think, realized something that I have come to believe as well. George was a strident atheist, as am I, and frequently excoriated religious belief. And we were both, at least at one time, liberals. But in some of his last HBO Specials he began taking on the PC crowd (liberals) and said that it was just as bad as religion, only from a different direction.
One note here before continuing. I'm using liberalism as a blanket term to address all of the left's entire cornucopia of caped-crusader conceits. From so-called hate watch laws and legislation (aimed at stifling our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech and expression) to feminism, another one of their sour fantasy lands, to the endless, socialism, social programs and social engineering that is always doomed to abject failure (as the last 50 years clearly, concisely and obviously indicate.) This tome is meant to address all of the left's perpetual childishness.
I would suppose, like Carlin, there is just something in me that when I see people who endeavor to change reality to suit their wishes and then expect you to follow them, on threat of either ostracism or blasphemy (religion) or the PC left with ostracism, shaming and possible loss of job, I find their tactics particularly vile. Let's call these two slugs, religion and liberalism, vile and viler.
Something known as "The National Science Foundation" will be donating 1 million dollars to establish a site called "Truthy" to monitor "hate speech" on the Internet. This, I think gives you a clear insight into the mentality of the left. This is of course, straight out of 1984, straight out of the emperor with no clothes, and yet they go forward emboldened with that big grin that can only be achieved by embracing the audacity of hopeless imbecility.
Again, what kind of belief system needs to employ a system of ostracism and shaming if what they say is true? Answer me that? Religion did it because they had no other choice. Fundamentally wrong about everything, they had to scare and intimidate you with threats of going to hell. So with liberalism. They have to employ the PC system of ostracism and shaming and perhaps more because just like traditional religion who would believe their garbage unless you hold a revolver to someone's head?
Allow me to expound on that just a little. For instance, we don't have to have PC Shaming and Ostracism Police on the case regarding something like whether 2+2 equals 4, do we? I'm not aware of it. The only time we would need to call in the PC shaming squadron of flying monkeys is the day we decide that 2+2=5.
And, why do you think it's always liberals who are the shrillest and the loudest when they are screaming their "truths." Let me suggest some further brilliance. When you drive upon a car accident in the middle of the street and one party is shouting and screaming louder than the other person, you know who's likely to be in the wrong, now dontcha(sic) baby? That's right, the one screaming and yelling the loudest.
An advertisement for tea. The caption; "Make peace with the world. Anti-stress tea from Rasayana." Advertising Agency: Art Grup, Istanbul, Turkey - Creative Director: Ates Cavdar - Creative Group Head: Husniye Saygili - Art Director: Derya Oguz
Copywriters: Levent Onur Ozdogan, Omer Onsun. | Photo: Metin Bakirkaya |
One of the things I want to cover is the mindset of modern liberals. Its adherents, like any religious cult simply cannot be wrong. How could they? They have the truth. They see liberalism as a sort of manifest destiny (I'm changing the meaning here from the traditional one involving the Unites States). Their chuckle-inducing canard goes something like this. Primitive man was pretty primitive and generally uncool, like okay? Every system failed. The world foundered in misery and uncoolness. Then in the 18th century, the Enlightenment took place and liberalism was given to the world, sort of like the little baby jesus, either by god or manifest destiny, the fates, of just the full flowering of the intellect of mankind (take your pick). Mankind had now found what it needed. But, it would have to be implemented with discipline! Oh yeah that discipline!
Oh goodness you savage, simple-minded saplings. If that isn't a religious creation story, what is?
Care for some reality? No? Who cares. Liberalism is really as old as western religion itself. You see, western religion is divided up into two major parts. One part is the up in the sky god part and the second part (judaism-christianity-islam) is the how to live down on the earth part. The creation myth of man. If god created us then we are all the same, equal. This is where this notion originally came from. It is all through the major western religions, it stinks of it, it didn't begin with the Enlightenment.
Anyway, watch the bouncing ball now carefully. The up in the sky-god becomes the underpinning for the mystical, metaphysical side of religion. The down here on the earth part-the creation of man part, the "everyone created equal" part first slithers into the mind of Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848) and then socialism, liberalism. You see, Marx rightly rejected the god up in the sky part, but then, unparalleled dolt that he was, grabbed onto the secular notion of man created equal. So both godly conservatism and secular liberalism both have their origins squarely in our ancient religious traditions and scripture.
Of course the only problem with both of these notions is that the godly part is complete rubbish, and the other secular religion, liberalism, the notion of man being created equal, and/or egalitarianism is equally laughable hogwash as man was not "created" by anything other than evolution, biology. But this whole thing is interesting isn't it, the communist, socialist, liberal true-believer latched onto the obviously phony notion of the creation of man instead of the science of evolution. Pretty stunning.
So what would both the conservatives (god myth) and the liberals (the creation of man myth) people learn if they could stomach even a little science?
If we hadn't become forever lost in these religious fairy tales we might know, firstly, that we are animals with animal natures, and therefore vastly better understand our real "human condition." Our "rather lowly nature," as Darwin described it. We would know that countries and people's are different, not interchangeable. We might know that men and women are different, biologically, emotionally and physically, although I do acknowledge this one is very, very difficult to figure out. We might realize that constructs like marriage are products of a religious society and produce more harm than good. That animals such as ourselves have never been monogamous, have always been polygamous. We might know that our endless and continual descent into the la la lands of the right and left maybe well-meaning, perhaps, but are hopelessly doomed to fail. We might further know that do-gooder day dreams like the sacred and hallowed "diversity" are jokes that have been laughed out of Europe (Oh yes they have, with either the heads or former heads of Germany, France and England all saying exactly that, that so-called multiculturalism is a flat failure).
We might also know that (res ipsa loquitur) things like affirmative action and all the rest of that and Hate Crime laws and legislation is not only dumb-assed, but is unconstitutional as these kinds of ideas violate our equal protection clause. You see, when you raise certain people to a level of protection that is not avail to others you obviously, by its very definition, are creating a special class for some, and the rest of the country, sans those rights, fall into the group of second class citizens. It's a constitutional violation.
And so how does it all play out? One supposes if you could somehow drop all of this unfortunate creatures in a big field somewhere, water them occasionally, they could all run around doing all of their caped-crusader work for the rest of us. We could fence them in and put warnings up. (Warning: 6-year old narcissists ahead. Ye who enter here abandon all hope.)
Liberals, like all other true believers have been indoctrinated to believe that theirs is really the "true" path, the true way. Their beliefs therefore cannot be wrong, and thusly, cannot be opposed. Liberalism is a sort of "manifest destiny" for the world.
However, in truth, liberalism is none of these things. Zero. The entirety of liberalism is based on the creation myth of man that we were all "created" equal by god. This fallacy is scientifically unsound, for starters. Let me tell you what is undeniably true. The recent triumph of liberalism is not ordained, not some kind of manifest destiny, is not inevitable, is not assured, is not, well, anything at all. It contains no truth, no logic, no reason, no empiricism, only fantasy.
Liberalism is the world that can never be. It exists primarily to allow its little boys and girls to feel superior to the neighboring masses of the great unwashed. This is its primary pull. "Oh look at me mommy, ain't I just grand? Look at me, look at me!"
Liberals can never succeed in the long run, and it won't come to pass as the world's system of belief. Why? Because it is only wishful thinking feel-good fantasies, not an understanding of science, biology, reality or even rudimentary sanity for that matter. But then again, what religion or cult in this case, has ever lasted against reason?
And I know this for certain. How? History. Because no religion, cult, sect, no dictator (Hitler
, Stalin, Mao) no political or economic system has ever survived that had a PC Shaming and Ostracism Police, a crowd of Jack-Boots, a Secret Police or a Blasphemy Squad that went around enforcing (and I do mean Enforcing) things like 2+2=5. Never, at least in the long run.