A Logical Conclusion

Like a 50 foot five year-old, the petulant and destructive aspects of liberalism are not particularly concealed. Though one of the more tedious and dishonest of those is one I’ve seen little remarked upon. Liberalism, as both an ideology and movement, doesn’t allow for measured responses or expressions of courtesy. It is instead a perpetual plunge into the abyss of logical conclusions.

I consider this periodically as the malignant logical conclusion of every benign gesture is reached. The easiest illustration is in the long–and mutually unpleasant–relationship between whites and blacks. A man of not far past vintage could reasonably have wanted blacks treated with dignity while simultaneously wishing for America to retain its European culture and demographics. He would have certainly considered himself open-minded and liberal for his altruism. Today he would be considered a neo-nazi. That is because liberalism denudes the mind of its necessary capacity for making judgements along a gradient. If we say 1, we are not required to say 100. If we swim a pool, there is no compulsion to swim the ocean. If we shake hands, we are not obliged to anal sex. Adults understand this implicitly. Liberals and children do not.

And so because it was accepted that blacks should not be chattel, the liberal mind commenced its relentless pursuit of logical conclusion. Thus they should not be segregated…denied…angered…offended…resisted. Whites taking a similarly linear trajectory. No slavery. No oppression. No segregation. No hegemony. No heritage. No pride. No will. The logical conclusion was not to end racial domination, but to exchange roles.

The phenomenon is equally apparent in the ascension of homosex from an act that was recently furtive to one now fantastic! A rational mind is not obligated to reach gay marriage because it reaches empathy for gays as human beings. But rational minds are not typically nominated for Supreme Court vacancies.

The most galling example of this Rainman world is the ongoing catastrophe in Europe. The infantry columns and shit-smeared buses were all predestined the moment that continent articulated “anti-racism” as an operating principle. Because no matter how many may have conceived the sentiment as simply an ecumenical expression of good will, the logical conclusion was inevitable: You may not differentiate yourself from others; thus you may draw no demographic cordons; thus your ancient lands do not belong to you.

I’d like to hope that whatever liberals emerge from ground soon irrigated in tears will approach silly rhetorical flourishes such as anti-racism and all men are created equal with greater circumspection. Though the logical conclusion is…not a chance in hell.


13 thoughts on “A Logical Conclusion

  1. Great writing. May I argue that progressive liberalism is not really a movement because it is merely an expression of the mentally ill, that is, the non-certifiable type ie infantile and emasculated though master manipulator peoples. And as the author explicitly states, we should not shake hands as ideological equals.

  2. As late as the 1980s actual ethnic Germans living in the Soviet Bloc were given preference as immigrants to the Federal Republic. When the Cold War ended, orders were apparently sent out that any kind of ethnic nationalism must come to and end for whites.

  3. I’d have to watch the movie again, but my first thought was that the insane dyslogic of liberalism would make Rainman’s head oscillate until it explodes. He required very stringent order in the most basic things, just to survive; and these retards have torn Order asunder, neutron-by-neutron.

  4. It reminds me of the Larry Auster idea of the unprincipled exception – when liberals subconsciously recognize that some application of a generally held principle would lead to disaster, so they resile from the specific case without actually disclaiming the general formulation. But I think you’re right that even the previously stable unprincipled exceptions seem increasingly fragile. The biggest one left, as far as I can see, is citizenship. If it is unacceptable to discriminate against people based on what color their mother’s skin is or whether their mother passed on a Y chromosome to their offspring, why is it acceptable to discriminate based on where one’s mother was standing when she gave birth? Don’t expect to hear a good answer from liberals. But they’re also not willing to totally give up on the idea of citizenship – yet. A lot depends on how long this state of affairs holds.

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/13) | The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s