4 replies »

1. This is downright pukeworthy.

   An atheist-feminist-humanitarian-democratist-prohibitionist-police-military-state.

   I would gladly shed blood to prevent this.

   Reply

   • What I heard in this speech: “We just need to use the police state to enforce our values while stomping the shit out of unarmed Americans and we need a more marketable pitch for imperial expansion. Then everything will be peachy.”

     Reply

2. She believes in “a woman’s right to choose” — but not a woman’s right to choose to smoke or own guns, apparently. And who knew that cigarettes are apparently one of the greatest evils inflicted on society? So evil, in fact, that the dramatic music indicates that not selling them to “the children” is one of the bravest moral crusades a person can undertake.

   Abortion, good. Killing convicted criminals on death row, bad. Killing people who commit genocide, good. Killing someone who breaks into your house as you attempt to defend yourself and your family, bad.

   Ordinary people can’t be trusted with guns, but governments will never abuse their power if they’re the only ones with guns.

   The left is certifiably insane.

   I know this is just a clip from a movie, but some scriptwriter actually believed those were good words to put in the mouth of a sympathetic character. Blows my mind.

   Reply

3. In spite of all my studies of different political ideologies, this kind of “progressivism” is one whose theoretical premises I just don’t get. It doesn’t seem to make any sense. Most political philosophies have some underlying set of presumptions:

   Libertarianism: “Society thrives when individuals are left to pursue their own interests with a minimum of state authority or physical coercion.”

   Marxism: “Society is a perpetual conflict between social classes over material resources as modes of production rise and fall.”

   Racism: “Society is a perpetual conflict between racial and ethnic groups over territory and power, and different races have different genetic endowments which causes them to build different kinds of societies.”

   Theocracy: “Society should be organized according to divinely decreed law.”

   Conservatism: “It is our obligation to preserve the civilization our ancestors have bequeathed to us for future generations.”

   Socialism: “Society has an obligation to care for its less fortunate members through public charity and regulation of businesses and industries.”

   Fascism: “The interests of the individual are subordinate to the interests of the nation. The state is the manifestation of the nation, and the leader is the representative of the state.”

   Left-Anarchism: “The state should abolished in favor of voluntary cooperation, and hierarchy and authority are not justifiable.”

   But the point of view expressed in that video is incoherent, for the reasons you point out. It seems to amount to “We need an imperialist foreign policy and domestic police state to protect human rights and public health. We need to invade other societies to impose our values on them, and send out the cops to keep people from smoking and possessing firearms.” That’s why I call this stuff “totalitarian humanism.”

   The views of abortion and capital punishment these people have normally aren’t rooted in individualistic or libertarian values, but in their belief in egalitarianism. They’re pro-choice not for libertarian reasons but for feminist ones. They’re against the death penalty not for anti-statist reasons, but because they think it’s racist.

   Reply