Comments

  1. says

    The racism of the Left is so explicit we forget it exists. No other people except Europeans and American diaspora Europeans can put on a show like Occupy or any other Leftist protest, display the worst qualities people are capable of and have all these people portrayed as people with real intellectual interests, important things to say, etc. Try that if you are anything else.
    Would Communism and Socialism persist given the rotten outcomes if they were not European ideas and therefore intellectually superior and sacrosanct?
    How about Israel? The real hatred of Israel is that the Jews will backslide into their biblical era ignorance and not realize all the wonderful things the European taught them while locked up in their ghettos.
    As for Arabs and people from India. Wonderful people as long as they keep their place. Indians should practice Eastern mysticism and play the sitar. Arabs should live noble, short and violent lives in barren deserts. When Indians and Arabs show they can be pretty good engineers leftist don’t like them very much.
    As for Asians. Well Asians are hopeless, math machines who are only worth anything if they follow cool agrarian policies under Mao. Then they have quaint rural lives. As an urban populace progressives hate them.

  2. Charles Martel says

    I think many progressives are puzzled. When they elected Obama’s pelt, they assumed that their REO (Racial Enlightenment Obligation) had been fulfilled—kinda like when Catholics discharge their obligation to show up at Mass at least once a year, preferably at Easter.
     
    But the symbolism of an articulate, cleaned-up, dark-complected man (a shout-out to Joe and Harry for the descriptors) in the White House has lost its mojo. Those damned mud people just won’t go away. No matter how many food stamps, abortions, and social promotions you give them, they want more. So, progressives, to divert themselves from their unease with their clamorous dark underlings, revert to making the mud people’s pathologies the fault of white Republicans.

  3. Mike Devx says

    It’s not only racism, it is also anti-Semitism…
     
    The United States believes there is no need for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a peace agreement, State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday.
     
    Psaki, who spoke to the PA-based Arabic-language Al-Qudsnewspaper, said, “The American position is clear, Israel is a Jewish state. However, we do not see a need that both sides recognize this position as part of the final agreement.”
     
    Don’t forget what you saw and heard at the 2012 Democrat National  Convention, when the overt anti-Semitism on the convention floor was loudly displayed:
     
    At the formal opening of the day’s business, the convention chairman, Antonio Villaraigosa, proposed a vote to return to the document its past commitment to Jerusalem as the Israeli capital as well as a reference to God.
    He called for those in favour of the change to shout ‘Aye’ and those against ‘No’. It was a hard to tell, with the two sounding evenly-divided. Villaraigosa called the vote a total of three times to no certain result but eventually called it for the Ayes.
    In fact, the change required a two-thirds vote in favour and it definitely did not sound anywhere close to that. But Villaraigosa pushed it through anyway, determined to try to bring a speedy end to an awkward row. There was loud booing in the hall when he announced the changes had gone through.
     
    There is little to no doubt that the move to support the Israelis generated the rebellion on the floor, the boos, the hisses, the raucous tumult.  They had stripped their platform of all pro-Jewish sentiment, and they did NOT want it put back in.
     

  4. Matt_SE says

    An interesting, if flawed article.
    I don’t believe any group as large as “progressives” can be monolithic. I suspect their motivations run the gamut. To oversimplify is the article’s main flaw.
    Still, I find it ironic that the author has taken a liberal tactic (viewing multiple problems through one lens) and turned it back on progressives. This is the flip-side of all the hypenated “studies” programs in college.
    For some of the issues, I found the author’s “true reason” to be novel. For others, I found the logic tortured. Some of the “true reasons” had to be shoe-horned pretty hard.
    Gun Control:
    A plausible take, but one problem occurs: if liberals see that their measures are failing spectacularly, wouldn’t they change tactics? OTOH, per the anti-monolith argument, maybe this is the only approach that agrees with the other motivations.
    Junk Food/Plastic Bag Bans and Nanny Statism:
    I find it more plausible that progressives endorse these policies as a way to flatter themselves. They view themselves as morally superior people, and prove it (mostly to themselves) by compelling “good” behavior. Still, it advances their power by increments so that’s an added motivation.
    Climate Change:
    Wealth transfers from first-world to third-world countries is part of it, and “white guilt” is somewhere in the mix. However, wealth cannot be divorced from power. So contrary to the narrative of condescension, some progressives are doing this because they want to simultaneously weaken the west and strengthen the rest. This is the guilt of those who think we don’t “deserve” this power, and also the “noble savage” views of Rousseau. So, once again it’s a jumble of reasons, some of them conflicting.
    The Welfare State and Affirmative Action:
    Spot on.
    Abortion:
    One BIG problem: if progressives were trying to practice black population control, why are they trying to import millions of Mexican illegals? Do they think illegals are different in some meaningful way? I doubt it.
     
    I think the Democrats are a coalition of groups with different interests, some of them conflicting. I think individual Democrats have a jumble of emotions regarding any subject, some of them conflicting. What they all agree on is that they are morally superior and need power in order to actualize their desires. The constituent groups move in concert with this need for power.
     

    • lee says

      Matt–
       
      I agree with you about a lot.
       
      For a lot of Progressives, it’s not just about “color” (though I do think that does factor into it) it is about:

      Their sense of superiority–they’re smarter, they’re more “caring”, heck they are just “better” than everyone else.
      Their sense of guilt–for being part of the Lucky Few.

       
      Of course, being part of the Lucky Few doesn’t mean they are willing to give up their gazillion square foot house in Malibu, and vacations in Bora Bora. But since they feel so guilty about it, someone to pay for or perform their penance. And that is usually the people they don’t like, but who they have decided are “just as guilty.”
       
      One of the things about living in their Malibu enclaves, (or off in their Ivory Tower) is that they are soooo out of touch with reality. They think that everyone can buy tote bags at a dollar a pop to haul groceries, and biodegradable garbage bags made of corn stuff for their trash, (that cost oodles more than plain plastic garbage backs and infinitely more than FREE bags from the store) so they don’t understand why people have a problem with plastic bag bans. And that everyone has a yard into which they can toss their composted crap.
       
      They also have a Rousseau-ian romantic view of “roughing it,” of the past, of “nature.” They think horses are sooooooo much “cleaner” than cars.  I would LOOOOVE to put them into a time machine to go back to Manhattan in the 1890′s….
       
      Now about Climate Change–while they are trying to run the US and other First World countries into Third World status, what also happens, is they make it even harder for Third World countries to be anything but Third World. Countries of Noble Savages.
       
       
       

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    Ah, heck…Matt_SE, you had me going until the “abortion” and “immigration” juxtaposition. Haven’t you figured out that their open-borders sympathies have more to do keeping the cost of their gardeners and maids down than with “social justice”?
     

    • Matt_SE says

      That would be another of those “mixed motivation” issues. Supporting illegal immigration runs counter to “keeping the brown man down” (the racist intent the author imputes), but also results in cheap servants.
      What’s a liberal to do?

  6. says

    Yea, the “gamut” of Islamic Jihad’s utopia with the Left’s utopia. There are so many varieties, they all end up at the same goal.
     
    It is precisely the point of a large organization that they all FEEL the same way. It is precisely the point that a large organization exists to keep all the sub factions with various different motivations chained to the same Road, Journey, and Destination.

Leave a Reply