‘The most ass-kickin' writer to come along
in a decade!’
-The NY Times
‘Glad to see you're getting it right.!’
What Liberalism Is Not
February 10, 2009
Most of us have wrongly concluded that Liberalism is nothing more than a fundamentalist religion, a rigid set of beliefs its adherents follow blindly in their ongoing attempts to eliminate other groups of people who do not share their ideology. But while in one of its guises liberalism is certainly a religion, it is much more than that. Like Islam, it is a complete code of life, including social, legal, scientific, and educational components no less stultifying and tyrannical than those of Islam.
In areas where liberals make up a small percentage of the population, generally under about ten percent, freedom of religion and expression are not simply tolerated but encouraged. Because our country is overwhelmingly Christian, and because the vast majority of Christians acknowledge the right of other religions to exist, everyone has the right to worship as he or she pleases and is free to express his or her opinions, even those whose beliefs run contrary to Christian beliefs. Where the liberal population is small, the phrase "will of the people" is meaningful.
When liberals achieve a majority, as they have in the current U.S. Congress and in many large states, they're able to push through policies that advance their true aim: the undermining of capitalism and the reduction to dependency on the state of as many people as possible. The economies of liberal states such as California, New York, and Massachussetts, and those of countries such as France and Germany tend to lapse into slow but inevitable fiscal decline, as state creep saps their populations of the ability, and eventually even the right, to engage in private enterprise. Government economic activity gradually grows to account for, as it does in Great Britain today, as much as three quarters of GDP, and such countries' citizens are gradually reduced to the equivalent of functionaries in a massive state bureaucracy that stifles individual creativity and initiative.
Where liberals are in the majority, their "norm" leads them to argue that becoming a porn actress is acceptable because it represents a woman's "taking control" of her own body, while at the same time dictating that they savage truly extraordinary and accomplished women such as Condoleezza Rice and Sarah Palin, making it clear that it is not a woman's accomplishments but her acquiescence to liberal doctrine that make her acceptable.
As their treatment of successful women attests, the social component of liberalism, like that of its counterpart, Islam, functions especially to deny the women who comprise some 50 percent of the sect's adherents the freedom to pursue careers on equal footing with men, indeed, in many cases to pursue careers at all, except within the constrained boundaries of the liberal social and political code.
Where liberals are in the majority, education suffers.
The educational branch of liberalism has gained a fortress-like foothold
in America's colleges and universities and, through the National Education
Association (NEA) - which former President Bill Clinton's Education Secretary,
Rod Paige, once described as a "terrorist organization" - in
America's elementary and secondary schools.
The NEA also promotes the look-say method of teaching
young children to read. This method, which was developed out of the work
of Russian behaviorist Ivan Pavlov, has led to illiteracy rates among
American schoolchildren approaching 20 percent nationally by some estimates.
In Chicago, a hotbed of liberal education practices, only about 17% of
eighth-graders can read at or above grade level.
When their majority reaches 75 percent or greater, as it has on many of America's increasingly madrassa-like college and university campuses and in many college towns, such as Berkeley, California, and Madison, Wisconsin, liberals eliminate the right of free expression. "Right thinking" is inculcated through a professorship that too often demands its students conform to liberal doctrine, and to go against such doctrine is grounds for persecution, punishment, or expulsion.
Among the areas that suffer most in these cases is scientific inquiry. Rather than encourage dispassionate debate, liberals in the majority demagogue scientifically inaccurate positions, and the laws and policy that result can be devastating. In the mid-1990s, for example, legislation to protect the Spotted Owl from the logging industry was passed. Later, as Spotted Owl populations continued to decline despite a virtual cessation of logging, it was revealed that the protected species' real enemy was the Barred Owl, an aggressive bird that was simply driving the Spotted Owl out of its habitat. That the Barred Owl was the true culprit was known when the legislation was passed, but liberals couldn't resist the opportunity to cause more than 125,000 people to lose their lumber-industry livelihoods to protect "endangered" birds.
Finally, although we know the history of countries which have come, by force, completely under liberal domination, it's worth reviewing briefly. Where left-liberals have no opposition, they no longer need to resort to quasi-legitimate means, such as legislation and court decree, to further their agenda. In such cases, the result is often mass murder, as in regimes such as that of Josef Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse Tung in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia. Unbridled liberalism, in the form of Communism, has been responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people over the past century alone.
Where liberalism holds complete sway, Christians and Jews especially are mercilessly persecuted, their houses of worship destroyed, their religious leaders imprisoned or killed. And it was in Soviet Russia during the 1920s that the liberal method of bending science to the service of ideology was first practiced. T. D. Lysenko's mistaken theory that genetics had little if anything to do with how plants needed to be cultivated led to the Communist government's issuing decrees that dictated what and when farmers would plant. The resulting famine killed as many as ten million Russian citizens and, when it was applied in Communist China in Mao Tse Tung's "Great Leap Forward" during the 1960s, another 30 million. The global warming hysteria that willfully ignorant liberals such as Al Gore are promoting could have similarly disastrous results if not challenged vigorously.
Where they gain influence, liberals behave as religious fundamentalists everywhere behave: with prejudice based on willful ignorance. While they describe their "heroes," including Barack Obama, breathlessly in terms usually reserved for messiahs or protagonists in romance novels, they at the same time spew rhetoric of hatred characterized by such bilious intolerance as to challenge credulity against anyone who dares to differ with their ideological stances.
But their behavior goes far beyond religious fundamentalism to the point where it becomes a complete "life system" with its own social, legal, scientific, and educational components, all of which must be in compliance with the most wrongheaded and destructive religious belief system ever foisted on the citizens of this planet, and all of which must be fought unceasingly lest liberalism become the law of the land to the permanent detriment of the people of the United States.