In re: "the derangement afflicting rightwing blogs"
Ever notice how those afflicted with such derangement — as I am now said to be — are seldom lauded by the left for their good sense and comity, or for their brave willingness to affect what the left has decided is bien pensant (an affectation that allows for inclusion among those select “fair” wingnut HATERS who shan’t as yet be entirely marginalized)?
Personally, if I found that I was being defended for the rigor of my thinking by “progressives” — and that defense essentially congratulated me on my willingness to overlook or dismiss evidence in order to avoid being labeled “deranged” by those whose chosen ideology necessitates the destruction of classically liberal ideals and individual autonomy as a precursor for centralized government control, a faux-egalitarianism that spreads but misery “fairly”, and the soft tyranny of liberal fascism the precedes the move to (transnational) socialism — I would check my own arguments to see where I’d gone astray.
But then that’s me. I know what I know and I’m comfortable that I know it, having spent so many years here doing the hard work of rigorously analyzing the “progressive” left, down to and including the linguistic imperatives that shape what I’ve shown to be the inevitable trajectory of their ideology, and so their policies. The kernel assumptions of progressivism lead directly to a subsuming of the individual into competing tribes, the tribes themselves being nothing more than a cultural construct developed around the idea of power; these assumptions, I’ve demonstrated time and again, lead to a worldview that adopts collectivism and eschews all but the most superficial individual autonomy — a peculiarity of leftism that manifests itself at the epistemological level, where “authenticity” grants each tribe control over its own narrative, with “truth” then determined by narrative ascendancy (and dissenters branded heretics, or Uncle Toms, or sufferers from false consciousness, etc.).
To those of you who’ve followed my work on language, you’ll recognize that this idea that “truths” are determined by narrative control — that is, by pure will to power — is just another iteration of the linguistic move that grants receivers of messages control over “meaning” solely by dint of their insistence that it somehow belongs to them, and by the power they wield in numbers.
So when I wrote of Ayers and other leftists, “It’s who he is. It’s who they all are,” that was not, as Rick Moran or Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi would have it, some throwaway line that exposes the shallowness of my thinking. Quite the contrary, it simply shows that, because I’ve broken down the progressive ideology to its basic linguistic seeds, I no longer feel the need to pretend that these people are good faith actors in the maintenance of a classically liberal civil society. They are petty despots. And their essential worldview is, of necessity, extra-Constitutional — and so anathema to my liberty.
This is who they all are.
If GOP pragmatists wish to have such people pat them on the head and be kept around as convenient rhetorical foils, that’s up to them. Me, I know who these people are. And what’s more, they know I know.
And so they need me demonized and marginalized. They need me seen as “deranged” and “extreme.” What I don’t understand is why so many on my own ostensible “side” seem so willing to support them in their efforts.
[h/t to Silver Whistle]