To Hate Liberally




Spengler (David P. Goldman) takes a look at the blind fury that seems to be the distinguishing characteristic of the Forces of Tolerance these days:


They really, really hate us. George Orwell wrote a morning “Two Minutes Hate” session into the daily life of his dystopia in 1984. One blogger notes that 2,000 of Rachel Maddow’s facebook fans wished that Ted Cruz would fall into an open elevator shaft. What would he have made of the hyperventilating hatred that liberals display against conservatives? Over at National Review, Katherine Timpf reports on a hate manifesto published by the chair of University of Michigan’s Department of Communications. Republicans “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.” wrote Prof. Susan Douglas. “So now we hate them back,” she explains. “And with good reason.”

In fact, they have their reasons to hate us. They are being silly. We know they are being silly, and they know we know, and they can’t stand it. It isn’t quite how we repudiate the idea that the opposing party has any legitimacy at all. But we can’t stop giggling.

“Reductio ad absurdum” does not begin to characterize the utter silliness of liberals, whose governing dogma holds that everyone has a right to invent their own identity. God is dead and everything is permitted, Zarathustra warned; he should have added that everything is silly. When we abhor tradition, we become ridiculous, because we lack the qualifications to replace what generation upon generation of our ancestors built on a belief in revelation and centuries of trial and error. Conservatives know better. G.K. Chesterton said it well: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”

The antics of the “small and arrogant oligarchy” that controls the temples of liberal orthodoxy have turned into comic material that Monty Python couldn’t have dreamed up a generation ago. There are now dozens of prospective genders, at least according to the gender studies departments at elite universities. What do the feminists of Wellesley College do, for example, when its women become men? The problem is that no-one quite knows what they have become, as a recent New York Times Magazine feature complained:

Some two dozen other matriculating students at Wellesley don’t identify as women. Of those, a half-dozen or so were trans men, people born female who identified as men, some of whom had begun taking testosterone to change their bodies. The rest said they were transgender or genderqueer, rejecting the idea of gender entirely or identifying somewhere between female and male; many, like Timothy, called themselves transmasculine.

Use the wrong terminology and you’re burned for a bigot. There used to be jokes such as: “How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, and it’s not funny.” You can’t tell that sort of joke about  Wellesley because the LGBTs never will agree on the lightbulb’s gender. There are rare cases of babies born with ambiguous genitalia, to be sure. There also are a few individuals obsessed from early childhood with the idea that they were born in the wrong body. They have difficult lives and deserve sympathy (but not public mandates for sex-change operations). Gender ambiguity in its morphological infinitude as a field of personal self-development, though, has become the laboratory for cutting-edge liberal thinking, the ultimate expression of self-invention. LGTB Studies (or “Queer Studies”) departments have or soon will be established at most of America’s top universities, classifying, advocating and defending an ever-expanding number of newly-categorized gender identities.

Go here to read the rest. The contemporary Left in this country has all the good humor, and imagination, of a Soviet Politburo meeting circa 1978.  Their ideological project is exhausted and we see them devolve into unconscious self parodies like the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Few things are sadder than being part of the Wave of the Future and slowly realizing that you are merely one of the eddies in the sea of time.  Substitute religions, and modern liberalism is manifestly a substitute faith, are fueled by hope and emotion.  As the hope begins to die, the emotion fueling it tends to be hate as the fake religion reveals its essence:  nothing.

More to explorer


  1. Nate Winchester: “Mary, I think they hate you for that pun. ;)”
    What pun? The question remains. Why should the taxpayer pay for a sex change? I cannot go on vacation because somebody needs a sex change and my taxes must increase?
    Johnathan Gruber said that American taxpayers are too stupid to know what is good for them and must have what is chosen for them (at taxpayer costs) imposed on them. Taxation without representation.
    A transgendered individual was exorcised and the priest asked the devil his name and the devil responded “women changer”. “We, the people” have to pay for the devil?
    and while I am ranting: If a gay couple goes to a gay bakery and is refused service, is it still sexual discrimination?
    I know of a situation where the couple came from another state to a doctor because of herpes. The doctor cared for them but the receptionist refused to take their money or handle the payment they paid. Discrimination or self-preservation?
    And then there are the signs of drug use or HIV/aids or unsanitary hygiene, gay or straight, must the proprietor of a business forfeit self-preservation to accommodate such vague and unequal Justice? Criminalizing the exchange of informed consent is not the business of government.
    Thanks for listening

  2. Liberalism is politicized envy. Wrath is another of the seven deadly sins. Think about it for 15 seconds and you will realize that leftists only have seven commnadments which are the seven deadly sins.

  3. Liberals like to think of themselves as “unique” and “cutting-edge”. Except for the fact they embrace a tired, old socialist philosophy penned 165 years which has been proven time & again to be an utter failure – LOL! And then we have the “fashionable” leftists who march in mental lock-step with each other because of their collective inability to think …. how “unique” is that?

  4. Perhaps, as some say, liberalism is a mental disorder. Beyond “rare cases of babies born with ambiguous genitalia”, men self-identifying as women and women self-identifying as men is madness. What if I self-identify as Napoleon?

  5. A Cloney: “Liberals like to think of themselves as “unique” and “cutting-edge”. Except for the fact they embrace a tired, old socialist philosophy penned 165 years which has been proven time & again to be an utter failure – LOL! And then we have the “fashionable” leftists who march in mental lock-step with each other because of their collective inability to think …. how “unique” is that?”
    Atheism, abortion, human sacrifice, sodomy, self abuse and tyranny have been around as long as man has survived on the earth. These barbaric evils were prohibited by the community as a means of self-preservation and survival. What the Supreme Court has done in permitting atheism, legalizing human sacrifice and self-abuse is to impose a real burden and the cost of the practice of these vices, taxation without representation, on real freedom and the free exercise of religion, conscience and the proper ownership of tax money. Legalizing these evils as a freedom, rather than as a vice, for an individual, makes the innocent persons responsible and liable for the crimes against truth and the general welfare, the common good. The Supreme Court forgot the virtue of equal Justice; the Justice that they must apply to all citizens and for all citizens without prejudice. The questions the Court must ask are: “Is atheism good for the human person? “ “Is human sacrifice good for the human person?” “Is sodomy good for the human person?”
    Our Founding Fathers outlawed atheism with the First Amendment “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Our Founding Fathers outlawed human sacrifice in drawing the Constitution for the purpose “of securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The Supreme Court has ignored these founding principles our Founding Fathers. Has the Supreme Court forgotten that their very existence is constituted by our Founding Fathers and predicated on their founding principles? The Supreme Court is established by our Founding Fathers to deliver equal Justice to all citizens and sovereign persons, the sovereign person of Jesus Christ, the sovereign person of the newly begotten, innocent, human person in the womb, the standard of the Justice the Court is to deliver, the innocence the Court must uphold to deliver Truth and Justice, their reason for being.
    If the Supreme Court goes the way of evil into the darkness will there still be a Constitution? …an American nation of the United States? Atheism, abortion and sodomy are evils outlawed by our Founding Principles. Will the Court uphold our Founding Principles or will the Court establish a new nation conceived without life, without liberty, without human conscience, without human freedom from tyranny, and with the imposition of evil, and with the extortion of the right to self preservation and property?
    Johnathan Gruber said that the American people are too stupid to know what is good for them. Here is a man who was paid to inscribe the evils of atheism, abortion and sodomy into our Founding Principles to cause the citizens to forfeit their tax dollars to pay for them.
    If anyone does not adhere to our Founding Principles, they are FREE to leave. These individuals are guaranteed the freedom to leave.

  6. The United States of America is the political culmination of thousands of years of human progress led by the light of the Judeo-Christian understanding of human nature and our relationship to the Divine source of Justice and Truth. Obama came along, wanted to “radically transform” the country, and we voted him in ….twice. We twice demonstrated that at least a numerical majority of us were “stupid” enough to vote for someone with a statist totalitarian agenda and allow him to nearly wreck the country.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: