, , , , ,

A new column in The Nation joined the flood of disgusting sycophancy in the media of dead dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. It is instructive of the mindset of the Vietnam era socialists, and their younger critical race theory-raised descendants, that they are openly worshiping a man who destroyed his country’s economy, oppressed his people, created violent, crime ridden cities by disarming and impoverishing his people, and whose main saving grace in the eyes of idiots like Greg Grandin is that joined the various dictatorships around the world together in their collective “critique” of the United States.

These “journalists” hate the United States because its too crass — it’s not Europe, where “all the culture comes from”, as Eddie Izzard once put it. It’s not fair — there are people who aren’t rich, like rich folks, with their rich corporations (that many of the “poor” are invested in for their retirement.) There is racism (but only on the part of those with privilege — and privilege is bad…unless you are a privileged Ivy League Progressive. Then it’s just good sense.) We once had slaves, so we were inherently racist and that stain can never be removed…despite most of the population of the United States having roots that post-date the abolition of slavery, much less that slavery was de rigeur around the world at the time of the founding. Very few places on the planet had abolished slavery, and it usually didn’t keep, before Thomas Jefferson kept trying to get the House of Burgess to eliminate the practice in Virginia. While not the first to abolish the trade, we were not the last, and the fight over the morality and efficacy of slavery started during the writing of the Constitution and continued until the Civil War.

All this doesn’t matter. Many “intellectuals” — be they conservative, fascist, socialist, Progressive, or communist — aren’t interested in facts or effects or the people that must suffer their meddlesome natures. They are intrinsically unhappy, childish people who feel the need to rail against something to feel important. It could be parenting styles they don’t agree with, smoking in public, sugary foods, or cars, or loud motorcycles, or guns, or poverty — they need a cause to make their mediocre talents and lives more theatrical and meaningful.

Their ideas, often absorbed by others of their ilk, have one commonality — they rest on the perception that they are smarter, more educated, more practical, …better than those people around them. Even when they are more misunderstood, or underprivileged they have a moral superiority to those that surround them. The masses are stupid, they are ill-informed, they are backward and conservative, and they are unfair. They are the face of oppression to the childish mind of the busybody; they are the playground bully; they are Mom and Dad.

When they encounter someone who believes as they do, or who speaks to their feelings of inadequacy and narcissism, who enables their fantasies of importance, power and privilege; they receive a very real sense of reward. When that person is a figure of power or fame — someone with charisma or a suitably strong media presence (like Chavez or Obama) — they rally around those figures. They are the courtiers to these would be kings and queens. They are sycophants, whose physical lives might not relie on the approval of their figure of admiration, but their mental lives most certainly do.

It doesn’t matter how ineffective, inefficient, damaging, stupid, or nonsensical the idea — if it comes from the same emo clique as themselves, these people will glom onto the idea. No matter the result, the intent is the most important thing to be judged by. When they are not appreciated for their intentions, or their smart, insightful ideas aren’t given the due they feel they are entitled to, they lash out. The people are too uninformed (or stupid, if they’re really incensed) to know what’s good for them. When they are feeling charitable, the Progressive will tell us they haven’t explained their positon well enough. they just need to open a dialogue…and so long as everytone agrees with them, the discussion has been had. Dissension requires we open a dialogue (again.)

Worse is when they face actual opposition. These people are just stupid, they are evil. They want people to hurt — they are, after all, the face of the wrong that the busybody is trying to change. Differences of opinion concerning intent, cause and effect, or the nature of the world don’t just counter their ideals, but because they are so internalized, it attacks the person that holds them.

I saw this frequently in academia. You could not just attack an idea — say, the Dawes Act (which attempted to break ative reservations into parcels of land that were recognized as owned by the members of the tribe) was not so much a bad idea, as it was badly formulated policy and impeded by corruption by the tribal chiefs, land speculators, and Federal administrators looking to make a quick buck helping the speculators. To the critical race theorist, this is racism — plain and simple. Attack that premise and you attack the person positing it. That might not be what you intended, but that doesn’t matter; you attack them as you’ve called into account their intelligence, their ideas, and their sense of worth.

Eventually, patience with disagreement runs thin. A grown-up either agrees to disagree or disengages from the argument. That is not the response of the Progressive. To them the people are too stupid to know what’s good for them. They have to be “nudged” or “dragged” to the Progressive position through ostracism, bullying, or outright coercion. (And what is more coercive than the police and military of a state?) If you do what they say, you will eventually see how right they are. And if you don’t your voice will be silenced, your ability to resist taken away with militarized police, drone strikes, and disarmament.

Here is this idea highlighted in Grandin in his own words:

Chávez was a strongman. He packed the courts, hounded the corporate media, legislated by decree and pretty much did away with any effective system of institutional checks or balances. But I’ll be perverse and argue that the biggest problem Venezuela faced during his rule was not that Chávez was authoritarian but that he wasn’t authoritarian enough. It wasn’t too much control that was the problem but too little.

Now, some (I’d hope most) people would see the first two statements as evidence that Chavez was a bad fellow, one that used violence and cheating to gain power (and a very cushy personal fortune) at the expense of people. He did not create inequality, nor did he end it; he simply change who became the privileged.

When people railed against this inequality, they questioned the wisdom of the international socialist and communist ideologies (and by extension, American Progressivism, in this case.) The bullies were disagreed with, and unable to admit their fallibility or lack of moral authority, they did what bullies do — they double down. Chavez wouldn’t be an evil tyrant if people weren’t calling him an evil tyrant (and by extension, calling into question the ideas of his admirers.)

Finally, these examples show why the busybody (in this case, Progressives, but it’s equally true of the fervent conservative, as well) cannot be reasoned with effectively, and why you cannot trust them to honor the wishes of people who disagree with them. And when you cannot trust a group of people to respect your rights and wishes, you do not have the luxury of disengagement, but must continually be vigilant to prevent their theft of your rights, property, and freedoms without infringing on theirs.