"Boyles makes one of the most cogent observations about how liberal intellectuals think, and why despite so many facts that face them, they refuse to change their minds no matter how strong the evidence. I myself come across this all the time, particularly when writing about the importance of understanding the reality of what Soviet espionage meant to America in the 1940s and 50s, and how to this day, the guilt of people like the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss is not accepted by so many mainstream liberals.
My friends and colleagues Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes say they are simply “in denial,” but that does not go far enough. Boyles nails why they are. He writes:In the end, most people- but especially contemporary intellectuals-believe what they believe because it’s too uncomfortable (or just too much work) to disrupt the seamless narrative of a carefully shaped worldview by trying to accommodate contrary evidence. The result is the kind of ignorance of obvious factors. … In fact, simply tracking the needed refutations to these intellectual narratives can make one tipsy with anger.Or to paraphrase the famous statement of George Orwell, there are some things so stupid that only intellectuals can believe them. Orwell understood what he called “the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia,” and were he alive today, he undoubtedly would have been rather shocked at how shallower their thought has become since his own time. Boyles comments on the clever attitude taken by the so-called moderate Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan, who knew he could win over the support of most liberal intellectuals because he understood “that they would believe what they needed to believe in any case,” and would ignore the kind of evidence the brave Paul Berman massed against him."
Ron Radosh, describing an article by Denis Boyles, in Claremont Review of Books.
[Emphasis Added]
Atheo-leftist-humanists believe so strongly in their paradise-on-earth fantasy and the ultimate moral value of top-down nirvana that they see no value to even considering the immoral suggestions of those moral weaklings who champion human rights for individuals, rather than equalizing all individuals in society to a single level. Because social equality is defined as moral, individual rights are immoral, and there is no God to say otherwise, there is no reason to think outside the socialist paradigm, even for a second. And because individual rights are immoral, any champion of such is a paragon of evil. The paradigm is a moral one.
So rather than considering the evil thoughts of the paragons of evil, both the thoughts and the paragons must be discredited and/or destroyed. As evil thoughts and thinkers always have been. One never considers evil thoughts seriously. And any method of discrediting or destruction will suffice, because destroying the immoral is the height of morality. Hence the insufferable self-righteousness of the Atheo-Leftist-Humanists, the moral activists of the Left.
It’s about a fantasy world, a dream land that no amount of factual demonstration of it’s historical, deadly, totalitarian, outcome can affect. The morality of the fantasy trumps the bloody destruction of its reality. When the fantasy trumps reality, no rational argument has any effect on those who hold the fantasy dear. In fact, the fantasy is declared to be the epitomy of rationality, and the benchmark for all thought to be compared against.
ADDENDUM:
This is the reason that the US Constitution means absolutely nothing to these folks: If the Constitution gets in the way of the fantasy, then it, the Constitution, is immoral and therefore inconsequential. It thus has no meaning at all to the moral hounds chasing the fantasy. If it is convenient to use it, the Constitution will be noisily invoked; if it is not convenient, it will be rejected in the courts by the moral arbiters in black robes.
3 comments:
Because social equality is defined as moral, individual rights are immoral, and there is no God to say otherwise, there is no reason to think outside the socialist paradigm, even for a second.
I'm not sure how this ties in with Atheism. Some interpretations of Christianity value social justice over individual rights...I think they base this on passages like the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of Lazarus and Dives. Meanwhile, the Randroid and Libertarian strains of Atheism think that social justice is a big scam and that individual rights are the only thing that matters.
So I don't think it makes sense to talk about this as Atheists vs. Theists. It's more like Universalism vs. Xenophobia: Should we support policies that potentially benefit everyone more-or-less equally, or should we support polices that protect "people-like-us" from "The Other"?
I get the feeling that you lean towards the xenophobic side, which I don't think is healthy. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you...can you give one or two examples of how Western democracies are unfairly denying individual rights in favor of social justice?
I saw poll results a week or so ago that said that >80% (90%?) of Atheists self-identify with the political left. I have searched for that but can’t find it at the moment.
Democracy is premised on responsibility of its members to wisely govern themselves. Originally responsibility was thought to reside in white males with property. This has expanded to the idea that all members of a democracy should be educated and then considered responsible.
The concept of “social justice” is premised on redistribution without any regard to contribution or responsibility. The glaring example is the economic captivity of a huge segment of blacks, who are guaranteed a welfare check without any responsibility to earn it. The co-dependence between the poor and their benefactors is self-sustaining, and the feedback is positive toward maintaining this as a stable state.
The term xenophobia is being commonly misused against those of us who feel that increasing the population of sucklers at the teat of the welfare state – at the expense of a responsible population of producers – is designed to increase the power of the co-dependents in the government. Xenophobia it is not. Wariness of internal parasitism it is.
It seems odd that the Left, which hates democracy-spreading by the western powers, promotes universalism. Not all people or peoples want democracy, nor or they prepared for the objective education that democracy requires in order to survive “government by the people”. The Left is not interested in responsible citizen voters, or it would streamline the onerous citizenship process for legitimate immigrants. The Left is interested in creating and perpetuating a host – parasite relationship that keeps themselves empowered permanently due to the vast number of dependent parasites that they have imported and immuned.
Another example. Insurance is a contract between many members and a central provider. The contract provides that any future mishap will be covered financially because of the accrued funds provided by monthly payments. The entire premise is future-based: we will band together to fund each other’s possible future mishaps. But then along comes someone who has a hugely expensive current problem, who wants into the contract without ever having contributed to it; in other words, wants or needs someone else to pay right now. This is another form of parasitism, regardless of the legitimacy of the need. By enabling and legitimizing this parasitism, insurance will become expensive, exclusive, and mostly useless – although required.
Needs such as those of uninsured, medically disabled, widows, orphans, etc. should have another form of help, rather than breaking down the insurance contract. If Medicaid is insufficient or incompetent, then fix it. Or eliminate it and create a sufficient and competent replacement. The willful destruction of insurance is not only not necessary, it is an attack on the responsible segment of society by the Left, with the intent to redistribute wealth.
Chaos Engineer said,
”Should we support policies that potentially benefit everyone more-or-less equally, or should we support polices that protect "people-like-us" from "The Other"?”
This seems to be a false dichotomy, because there are other choices. An example would be to take care of those who are legitimately indigent due to no fault of their own, while leaving the indigent-by-choice to enjoy their choice and its fate. Investing in beer, big tires and video games rather than insurance is no reason to inflict the consequences of that choice on the responsible segment of the population.
The entire issue of co-dependent parasitism is that of denying consequences to those who perpetually make destructive decisions. In fact, by providing financial aid, destructive decisions are made to seem beneficial, even desirable. Hence, self-sustaining.
Post a Comment