Objective reality as a backdrop for the expression of liberal values

Seems several gaggles of my fellow New York Millennials have been taking selfies with the burning wreckage at the corner of Second Avenue and Seventh Street in the background. Apparently this has upset some folks.

But what’s the big deal? Or, rather, how is this inconsistent with the otherwise-mandatory liberal worldview? To liberals, there can be no such thing as objective reality, because the existence of objective reality implies that there are limitations on individual freedom imposed by nature. Therefore, in the absence of objective reality, all events — no matter how calamitous — have value only within the context of one’s existence. And thus, a burning building is significant only in the sense that it’s unusual and provides a neat photo opportunity. It has no moral implications. In the liberal mind, then, the things which non-liberals associate with objective reality exist only as a backdrop against which the liberal’s gratuitous expressions of social and sexual liberation may be showcased in the greatest prominence.

Objective reality as a backdrop for the expression of liberal values

White Guilt Jumps the Shark

In a move that can be described only as bizarre, Starbucks has adopted a policy encouraging its employees to discuss race relations with customers while serving their coffee.

Most of us react to this with revulsion, and Starbucks’ idiot VP of Global Communications Corey duBrowa has been shouted down for this in righteous fashion. But I think it’s important to explore why this policy is so ridiculous, because its ridiculousness transcends mere white guilt.

The traditional view of human relationships is that there exist various “spheres;” the private, the professional, the academic, and the political, to name a few. The way one acts and conducts oneself may vary significantly between those spheres because it may be helpful to emphasize different personality traits depending on present company.

But the liberal view is that any delineation between the public and private realms is wrong, because it’s oppressive in that it rewards people for acting publicly in ways which aren’t in exact accordance with how they act in private. In other words, any separation between the spheres is a violation of freedom of expression. It does not support their agenda of total liberation ideology. Therefore, the traditional boundaries on conversations between people in a public setting must go.

For example, the discussion of race relations would, under traditional order, be limited to the private, academic, and political spheres. It is inappropriate for a person to whom you relate in only the public sphere to engage you in a discussion of race relations. It is annoying; it is an invasion. And even liberals admit this — just read some of the responses from liberals in the linked article.

So it seems that, subconsciously, even liberals are drawn to the traditional order and hierarchy I support unabashedly and vocally.

White Guilt Jumps the Shark

The misapplication of charity

The Daily Mail has an article about the murder of Dr. Thomas Oakland by Stephen Underwood. I’m not sure that this can be attributed to white guilt, but it can be attributed certainly to the uncritical application of religious, especially Christian, teachings about charity and helping others.

Now, I am not a religious man. But I know for a fact that Jesus never intended for his followers to open their doors and welcome into their homes mindless, violent thugs like Stephen Underwood. Of all the means by which one may practice charity, Dr. Oakland chose to allow a thug into his personal life and transferred enormous sums of money to him directly. By allowing the thug to become familiar with his finances and the location of his cash, Dr. Oakland sowed his own death at the hands of his charity’s recipient.

White, do-gooder liberals and their Christian analogues ignore the real and present danger that surrounds them at their own peril. There are numerous ways to exercise charity and help those who do truly need, and can appreciate, a helping hand; establishing personal relationships and spending time one-on-one with violent thugs is the most dangerous and likely least rewarding among them.

The misapplication of charity

Liberal Jews and the antisemitic bogeyman

My grandmother turned 94 last week and my mother and my uncles had a nice little gathering at my grandmother’s place in celebration. She is beginning to lose her faculties so we are trying to enjoy the time we have with her.

The conversation invariably turned to politics, at which point I announced my view that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization, and that mass Muslim immigration to the West must be halted. This precipitated the predictable and irrelevant “But not all Muslims are extremists!” response, as well as analogizing my position to that of anti-Semites.

The former is simply an emotional response; the existence of individual “moderate” Muslims has nothing to do with whether or not, from a policy standpoint, it makes sense for us to allow Muslim immigration. But the latter betrays the mentality of the liberal suburban Jew: they are terrified of antisemitism, whether or not they’ve ever experienced it themselves. They just know there’s a redneck farmer out there, just over the next hill, who hates Jews and everything about them. And not just a single redneck farmer, but a whole gaggle of them; indeed, they underlie everything that is American. This entire country was founded upon the principles held dear by antisemitic redneck whites, and as Jews, they are just barely able to hold off the onslaught of Jew-hatred. The most powerful tool in the toolbox is undermining the rotten, racist American spinal cord by supporting anything antithetical to its values. And not only that, but anything — any argument or position — even vaguely reminiscent of white antisemitism must be just as misguided and, indeed, evil as the highest chieftains of Jew-extermination. That includes any argument that a particular religion or behavior is incompatible with Western values because, of course, those despicable white anti-Semites said that very thing about the Jews, years ago.

I believe sincerely that the above narrative is, in essence, what goes on in these people’s minds. As a Jew (culturally, rather than religiously), I consider it my job to oppose this crippling and suicidal idiocy. ISIS is cutting people’s heads off on the internet, and American Jews are worried about the guy at the grocery store wishing them a merry Christmas.

Of course, when challenged to produce an example of antisemitism, none of them could recall anything specific. They just know it’s out there. Lurking just beyond the corner, somewhere in the dark.

It’s time to wake up, Jews of the West.

Liberal Jews and the antisemitic bogeyman

Does sexual orientation have moral implications?

Sally Kohn implies that it does.

When we say that we want others to emulate our behavior, it’s because we ascribe a certain moral value to those behaviors, or that we feel a sense of solidarity with those who engage in them. This is the nature of preferring the company of certain people, for various reasons, over others. It also implies judgment — deciding that one code of behavior is better than another. It’s perfectly natural and is both the conscious and subconscious practice of psychologically healthy individuals.

Except, of course, when one’s judgment leads them to believe that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality. Then you’re a hateful bigot, perhaps even a Neanderthal.

On another note, I’d like to point out that Sally Kohn simultaneously embodies nearly every stereotype of liberal idiocy in mainstream culture. It’s a magnificent achievement. I just wish she’d adopt a baby from Africa to complete the package.

Does sexual orientation have moral implications?

Self-determination in Quebec

My girlfriend and I spent the past weekend in Montreal, Quebec. It is a nice city and we enjoyed ourselves and each other. However, until this little trip, I was ignorant of the vast cultural conflict between Quebecers and the rest of English-speaking Canada.

In 1977, Quebec passed the Charter of the French Language, charging the Quebec Board of the French Language with ensuring that French be the primary spoken and written language in both public administration and private sector business. Signs in places of public accommodation must be written in French, and any English translation must be less prominent than the French portion.

The relevant historical context is, very briefly, that Quebec (and indeed a vast portion of now-developed Canada and Midwestern United States) belonged to the French prior to Britain’s victory in the French and Indian War in 1763. While most of the French influence in the areas noted in parentheses has been overwhelmed by cultural and political forces over the centuries, in Quebec it has maintained a foothold. As such, many Quebecers see themselves as a conquered people and there is a significant degree of resentment of the majority English Canadian culture. This resentment has precipitated multiple secession movements.

This is very intriguing to me. By what means may a people preserve what they believe is their historic culture? What, if any, abridgments of individual rights are appropriate in achieving this end? Further, is natural cultural evolution (especially as a result of political and geographic realities which have gone largely unchanged for the past 250 years) to be resisted just as we resist radical cultural revolution?

As an American, my sense of things is that Quebec’s attempts to preserve its culture via executive fiat are misguided and their sweeping dismissal of individual rights is unacceptable. If the human forces at play are such that a single aspect of your culture is being eroded, not by government tyranny but by 250 years of history, it may be time to accept that said aspect is an anachronism.

I am, by no means, committed to the above-stated view. That is just my gut reaction based on my experience there over a period of 72 hours and about ten minutes of reading on Wikipedia. I’m open to, and invite, others’ perspectives on this matter.

Self-determination in Quebec