The problem that arises when you’re the greatest nation in the history of the world, is that there’s no real problems to deal with. There’s no war. Anybody who wants a job can get one. Nobody starves to death. Everybody has access to medical care. Even beggars can make six figures a year.
But happily ever after breeds complacency. Once people get what they want, they tend to want something else. So, if life is good, and there’s no legitimate problems in paradise, abstract ones are created in La-La land.
A few examples of these “problems” are things like “systemic racism” and “White privilege.” Or “transphobia” and “gender equality.”
The reader is well aware of the “problems” that I’m referring to. In fact, most of you have likely been accused of being “part of the problem.” And it’s not even because of anything you’ve done personally. It’s just because of the color of your skin, and your assigned gender. Yes. I’m talking about White men.
Allow me to demonstrate. The narrative goes something this: White men created the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but that’s just because they were White supremacists. And now that they’ve used their superiority to make an amazing world that nobody else could’ve even imagined, we don’t need White men anymore. So we’re going to use the “rights” that White men gave us to usurp his power.
Perhaps I’m being a bit vicious. Therefore, I’ll illustrate my point with this Salon article titled, White Men Must be Stopped: The Very Future of Mankind Depends on it:
“The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the White man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe.”
Does that mean it’s time for White men to be submissive? And be the cucks of the planet for the next five centuries, patiently waiting for equality to catch up with evolution?
Let’s be totally honest here. Excluding historians, and apparently the White man who wrote that article, does anyone really care what happened 500 years ago?
Before you say something racist or anti-Semitic, let’s analyze this using the Socratic method:
Why would a White man write an article like that?
Are “human rights” a concept of White men?
Would slavery still exist without White men?
What would philosophy be without White men?
Would we have electricity without White men?
Would the United States exist without White men?
What would science be without White men?
What would modern medicine be without White men?
If you haven’t got the point, just take any luxury (or innovation) that you can think of, and ask yourself, “Would this exist without White men?”
And if for one second you assumed that self-hating White men are the only people who think White men are the problem, you’d be wrong. The mainstream media supports that narrative as well. Like the tolerant folks over at CNN who allowed Don Lemon to make racist remarks about White men:
“So we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is White men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them… There is no travel ban on them… There is no ‘White guy ban.’ So what do we do about that?”
Did Don apologize for his racist comments? Nope. He doubled down:
“I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily White men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming.”
Really? So, Don wants to “put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts” when he makes racist statements? That’s interesting. Somebody should remind him of that the next time he calls a White person “racist” for opposing illegal immigration, or for discussing the disproportionate amount of Black crime.
Here’s an intriguing thought: Imagine the same scenario, but Lemon is White and he asks why there’s not a “black guy ban.” Would he still have a job?
No need to answer that rhetorical question, because we actually saw something similar play out in real-time recently when Megyn Kelly asked a seemingly harmless question about dressing up for Halloween in blackface:
“What is racist? You do get in trouble if you are a White person who puts on blackface for Halloween, or a black person who puts on Whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid, that was OK just as long as you were dressing as a character.”
Look. I don’t even like Megyn Kelly. I haven’t watched her since Trump made her look stupid when she worked at Fox News during the election. But she apologized at the beginning of the next show, and she still got fired. And to be totally honest, I have no idea what she even said that was offensive.
This epitomizes the tyrannical essence of American liberalism. A Black guy can unapologetically say whatever he wants, but a White lady is fired for asking a question about a silly social norm, even though she apologized afterwards.
America has become the world-leader in the manufacturer of “isms.” The reason being is that we hit peak-USA in the 1950s, and have since not only witnessed significant demographic change, but we’ve also devolved into the post-theological society that Nietzsche philosophized about when he said, “God is dead.”
“The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines.” ~ Nietzsche
These “philosophical doctrines” (i.e., “isms”) have become the catalysts for power. Essentially, they are ideological ponzi schemes, which promise utopian returns, yet produce dystopian ruins. They take from one and give to another.
The 20th century provided two obvious examples of post-theological societies with philosophical doctrines: Communism and Nazism. Regardless of how one feels about either/or, the catastrophic results of each speak for themselves.
History says that at some point in the 21st century the US will engage in a major war. If so, will the bully that is liberalism play a instigative role?
A liberal might read this and roll their eyes. And say something like, “That’s ridiculous. The concept of liberalism is freedom and equality for the individual, rooted in love and tolerance” (i.e., “muh individualism, but we’re all the same tho”). Maybe. But a lot of people also believed that communism was the path to a truly utopian society. How did that work out for Russians?
The concept of liberalism, and what neo-liberalism has become, are two different things. Liberalism has evolved into emotionally-based rhetoric that places people’s feelings above common sense. Not to mention, it’s also explicitly anti-White.
Fundamentally, liberalism is a secular version of Christian values.
Ideologically, liberalism is the god of the godless.
Metaphorically, liberalism is a snake that eats its own tail.
Realistically, liberalism is tyranny.