Among the many signs that a worldview is on the edge of imploding is when it creates a completely separate world from the real one in language and act, attempting to sustain it through every means conceivable. “Liberal” Progressivism, which is really neither liberal nor progressive, has been, for years, attacking language and truth to maintain itself. At first, of course, the disconnects were very small — a slight shift here, a little wiggle there. But recently, as progressivism reaches for the “finish line” of becoming the dominate, in fact tyrannical, worldview, the disconnect has become shrill. Like the dazzle painted ships in World War II, the progressives want us to look at anything — ANYTHING — other than the self-contradictory nature of their worldview. But it doesn’t matter how strongly a worldview denies reality — reality votes last.
Several examples from the last week illustrate the lengths to which the liberal progressives are going to not only deny reality, but even to create “safe spaces,” in which they need not face reality at all.
When running for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama misled the voters about his true position on the question of same-sex marriage. This is not an accusation made by one of the president’s political enemies, but an admission made by one of his closest political advisors: David Axelrod. According to Time magazine, Axelrod’s new book about his career in politics reveals that candidate Obama really believed in same-sex marriage, but he publicly said that he opposed it because he feared the electoral consequences of his real convictions. -Public Discourse
“Oh, but that’s just politicians being politicians!” Not quite. In fact, not at all. This tactic of saying one thing while believing another — all the while crying “hypocrite” against anything your opponent says or does — is nothing less than a denial of reality. Not only is it denying what you really believe in order to gain power in order to do something else, the “something else” Obama wants to do denies reality on its own terms. To wit — why is the primary defense of same sex marriage built around sexual desire being identical to race (genetic, and hence unchangeable), and yet people are encouraged to change their sexual orientation (as long as it’s away from “straight”) throughout their lives? Why does the “questioning” still stands in the ever expanding universe of sexual orientations? Do you ever really question whether you are white, Hispanic, Oriental, or African? How, then, can the be similar in any way? But nevermind the contradiction. To escape it, we must build a “safe space” in which can believe it is true, no matter the consequences. To this end…
At Brown University, a scheduled debate between two feminists about rape culture was criticized for, as the Brown Daily Herald put it, undermining “the University’s mission to create a safe and supportive environment for survivors.” In a school-wide e-mail, Brown President Christina Paxon emphasized her belief in the existence of rape culture and invited students to an alternative lecture, to be given at the same time as the debate. And the Daily Herald reported that students who feared being “attacked by the viewpoints” offered at the debate could instead “find a safe space” among “sexual assault peer educators, women peer counselors and staff” during the same time slot. Presumably they all shared the same viewpoints and could be trusted not to “attack” anyone with their ideas. -Washington Post
Colleges campuses have become the ultimate “safe space” for anyone who believes in liberal progressivism — and a decidedly unsafe place for a discussion of reality.
What will they think of next? Asking the Government to expand their safe space by “protecting children from religious education?” (Don’t bother explaining that atheism is, in fact, a religion — another self-contradiction that would blow the mind of any liberal progressive).
Ambushing candidates you don’t agree with, with “gotcha” questions (following in the well tread path of, “are you still beating your wife?”)? Arguing that the work of a scientist showing the models on which the entire global warming scare are wrong — not because the actual science is wrong, but because of the source of his funding (By the way, who’s anti-science here?)? (More information on this one here and here) Inventing new relationship types to avoid the one relationship that really matters — marriage?
When all else fails, and reality starts to slip through, just throw out an ad hominem attack, and then move back into your “safe space,” where you don’t have to hear any opposing viewpoints. Run — escape from reality as fast as you can, little liberal progressive. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear.
But you still can’t run faster than reality.
And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O mighty man of valor.” And Gideon said to him, “Please, sir, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our fathers recounted to us, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the Lord has forsaken us and given us into the hand of Midian.”
To truly “get” the background of these three chapters of Judges, we need to think through precisely what Israel is experiencing at this moment. It’s plain enough that Israel is being raided to the point of poverty — here is Gideon threshing wheat in a winepress, essentially a pit designed to contain the results of crushing grapes for their juice — to prevent the regularly raiding armies from taking it. Israel has been driven to build strongholds in mountain caves, places where they can flee for their very lives as the invading armies cover the land to eat every blade of grass, as it were.
In reaction, Israel believes that God has abandoned them. It’s not that they believe God unable to do anything about the evil surrounding them, it’s that they believe God is unwilling to. Here, in short outline, Israel has answered the problem of evil — God is omnipotent, but he’s not, in some sense, “good.” Gideon, given this, isn’t just asking why God has done this, Gideon is asking why he should have faith in God. “Look around you,” he’s saying, “God isn’t doing anything! Where are his promises? Where are his miracles? Where is his deliverance?”
The answer, from a worldly perspective, has already been given just a few verses before. Through the mouth of an unnamed prophet, God told Israel — “you are supposed to worship me alone, and you haven’t.” But this “tit-for-tat” misses a deeper problem here.
What, precisely, is the nature of faith?
Should Israel — and Gideon specifically — trust in the situation he sees as reality on the ground before him? Or should he trust in the promises and history of Israel with God? Where should Gideon place his faith? The answer is that when we are faced with apparently contradictory piece of information — God’s promises against what we think we see in the future, the past versus the present — we need to learn to trust in God’s Word over and against what we seem to perceive.
This might, in fact, appear to be an “anti-intellectual,” or even “anti-science” stance — or maybe ever “irrational.” The reality, however, is that we are all, always, faced with multiple pieces of contradictory information. We must always choose between what we will accept and won’t. We never, in fact, completely and totally trust our senses of our current experience over and against our past experience. When we’re in the middle of a car accident, we don’t believe that all driving is always dangerous — that would be as deranged as believing that accidents never happen.
God’s answer, though, shows that he doesn’t actually expect us to “just trust,” that faith is an unreasonable leap, or irrational, or even “anti-science.” We’ll start thinking through God’s answer next time.
Global Chilling: The Impact of Mass Surveillance on International Writers is a new report demonstrating the damaging impact of surveillance by the United States and other governments on free expression and creative freedom around the world. -Pen America
Because “you don’t have anything to fear if you have nothing to hide,” most often turns into, “hide what you think might cause you to fear.”
When ISIS killed three Saudi border guards, including a general, earlier this month, it was no mere border raid or a target of opportunity. The terror group was probing an enormous border security project that Saudi Arabia has undertaken to protect itself: a 600 mile wall stretching from one end of its border with Iraq to the other, according to the Telegraph. (An infographic in the Telegraph piece captures the sheer scale of the undertaking. Do check it out). We doubt the Saudis will get the kind of guff from the international media over this project that Israel and America have received for their border walls; that kind of thing is only reserved for the truly bad actors in Washington and Jerusalem. -American Interest
Those who defend BDSM, like those who defend the campus hook-up scene, usually rest their case on one element and one element alone. That element is not love. That element is not fidelity. That element is not commitment. It’s not even pleasure. That element is consent. This one feature is seen as all-important and decisive. On this social contract model, as long as both partners consent, then everything is okay. As long as both partners consent, no one is harmed in the process. In Fifty Shades, although Ana is ambivalent and reluctant—it takes her a while to warm up to the BDSM arrangement—she eventually consents to the masochistic/submissive role. Well, then, no harm, no foul. Right? Wrong. -Public Discourse
You think you live in a bad neighborhood? Consider the following map of how long the average Israeli has to reach “safety” once a missile alert has been issued. Then consider the radical change if the world gets it’s way, and much of the Galilee and Samaria are handed over to the control of those who are trying to build a Caliphate.
Would you find this acceptable if it were New York State?
It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars. Electric cars’ global-warming benefits are small. It is advertised as a zero-emissions car, but in reality it only shifts emissions to electricity production, with most coming from fossil fuels. As green venture capitalist Vinod Khosla likes to point out, “Electric cars are coal-powered cars.” -USA Today
Natural resource industry leaders nationwide shuddered in February 2011 when the Environmental Protection Agency announced its intent to veto the proposed copper, gold and molybdenum-rich Pebble Mine in southwestern Alaska – before the developer even had finished its preliminary design. Without warning, the EPA had nullified a half-dozen basic laws and seized power to itself without authority. … How could this happen in a nation of laws and due process? The appalling answer can be found in a 138-page briefing paper Pebble Limited Partners filed last year with its lawsuit against the EPA in the U.S. District Court of Alaska. The secret behind the EPA’s pre-emptive strike against Pebble Limited Partners was a three-pronged cabal–lavishly funded by left-leaning environmental groups–of environmentalist coalitions, anti-mining scientists and anti-mining assessment consultants who were secretly given illegal access to and power over EPA strategy and decision-making, according to the Pebble group’s brief. -Daily Signal
In countless discussions about smoking’s devastation, people ask me: “If tobacco harm reduction is a viable quit-smoking option with huge public health benefits, why don’t U.S. medical schools advocate this concept? Why are you almost alone among American university professors in openly endorsing tobacco harm reduction?” The answer resides within a powerful government agency, the National Institutes of Health. -Heartland
We often have an almost worshipful view of science — the scientific process guarantees unbiased, usable results all the time, it takes the “human element” out of learning about the world (and people), etc.
But the truth is far different. Much of this is because there is “science,” and then there is “science” — one of the favorite tricks of the progressive is to say a single word that implies one thing, and means another (“progress” and “progress,” for instance, or “evolution” and “evolution”). You can see this all the time in discussions and arguments — “science is the process of making a prediction, building a repeatable experiment, and reporting the results.” This definition gives credence to the “other” definition, which is outlined in the three quoted articles above — determining a course of action, swaying someone who has a science degree (and works in a lab) to build out “proof” on demand, and then saying, “science demands it.” From gay marriage to global warming, “science” is brought out to the front lines as “proof positive.”
The problem, of course, is that scientists are people too. They are susceptible to influence through money (the tabacco article above) and worldview (the article on Pebble Mine above) — and these conclusions often seep into the real world through widespread beliefs founded on “science” (the article on electric cars above).
But don’t you dare mention any of this in public — for you are immediately labeled “anti-science” if you show the slightest deviation from the progressive use of science towards its own ends. Not that “progressive science” is really “science,” but it sure makes for a convenient attack on anyone who disagrees, doesn’t it?
In case you missed it, this isn’t about Obama — this is about us. The problem is we truly believe that “we are the […]
Massive interconnectivity in our era has ironically resulted in self-isolation, self-delusion and aggression — for individuals and nation-states alike. -Townhall
We know this is […]