Liberalism a Dehumanizing Cancer that Will Eat Itself

Opinion

Dead Animal Bird Corpse
Liberalism a Dehumanizing Cancer that Will Eat Itself: Intersectionality, perhaps even more than the rudimentary forms of identity politics that preceded it, is also damaging to people because it forces them to focus on themselves as victims of disadvantaged groups rather than encourage them to strive, as individuals, to be the best they can be.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Liberal ideology is rife with inconsistencies, but none is greater than how its supposedly animating motivation — human compassion — is contradicted by its devaluation of human life.

Liberals have long claimed superior compassion and demonized conservatives as being uncaring. This has always been untrue while superficially appearing to be true, and liberals have evangelized countless young minds with this seductive canard.

It's difficult to convince embryonic liberal activists that individual liberals may be compassionate but their governing ideology and the inevitable consequences of their policies are not. It's also difficult to make them see that conservatives are compassionate and tolerant when we stand for unchanging moral standards and openly disagree with policies that liberals successfully peddle as compassionate.

But beyond the superficial rhetoric, liberalism does not stand the test of compassion, because it subordinates individuality to identity groups and the collective and degrades human dignity. One of the great ironies of secular humanism is its purported championship of mankind as the measure of all things while undermining what makes us human.

How can a philosophy that devalues human individuality ultimately be compassionate toward human beings?

The most obvious example is liberals' extreme advocacy of Abortion, making it a holy sacrament that is not about individual choice but a paranoid conviction that pro-lifers threaten women's rights, health care and autonomy.

Another example is Socialism, which the leftist-dominated Democratic Party is virtually embracing today. Throughout history, socialists have duped millions of well-meaning people into believing that free market capitalism is evil and socialism is noble. I don't even subscribe to the glib pitch that it is wonderful in theory but doesn't work in practice. It's also unappealing in theory because it is fundamentally at odds with human nature and the human spirit. It arrogantly assumes it can remake human beings as irresponsive to incentives and devoid of their competitive spirit and their natural yearning for liberty.

In practice, socialism has consistently impoverished and enslaved. With its top-down control of the economy, it obliterates individual economic liberty and thus robs individuals of an essential part of their humanity. Government-forced transfer payments — taking other people's money to satisfy one's sense of moral self-worth — is a far cry from charity and compassion. I know of no conservatives who oppose a social safety net for the truly needy, provided it incentivizes the able-bodied to return to the workforce.

When it comes to health care, of course conservatives want to maximize people's access to the highest-quality care at the lowest prices and most choices, but they dispute that forcing everyone to be insured helps achieve any of those goals efficiently. What is true of socialized medicine is true of socialism generally: It doesn't work anywhere in the long run — including in Sweden, truth be told. How compassionate are socialism and less extreme big-government liberalism when they destroy economic growth and prosperity and, left to their own devices, often lead to totalitarianism?

Socialism, just like much of economic and political liberalism, is more about people seeking power and control over individual lives.

The latest rage is Intersectionality, which establishes new hierarchies of victimhood and privilege based on the overlapping and interrelated categories of disadvantages that groups of people have experienced. We must no longer look at discrimination through the “single-axis framework” of race, gender, class, disability, etc., but understand how the various identities intersect. Some people have multiple “burdens” or “disadvantages,” such that black women, for example, suffer more discrimination than black men and white women. Unless we refine our thinking to account for these combinations of disabilities, the most disadvantaged will be ignored. Isn't this exhausting? Who really thinks like this if not forced to?

This is why feminists have recently been shamed [by Liberals] for promoting their singular cause while presumably ignoring the plight of transgender people, gay people, the disabled and black women in particular. It is why intersectionality zealots are questioning whether Sen. Kamala Harris is “black enough” to be president, as her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. She may not be black enough because she is not African-American — a bona fide descendant of American slaves. It is why race- and gender-obsessed people are upset that the three Democratic presidential front-runners are white men.

It doesn't seem to occur to these self-described supporters of democracy that three white guys happen to be ahead because people are voicing their opinions. It also doesn't seem to bother the Democrats expressing their preference for white men that though they won't dare challenge the orthodoxy of intersectionality, they are violating its premises with their voting inclinations.

Among other things, intersectionality is dehumanizing because people are demonized or protected depending on their group, not on what they have done or what they have personally experienced. How can people not see that this kind of thinking violates our basic sense of justice and accountability? Intersectionality, perhaps even more than the rudimentary forms of identity politics that preceded it, is also damaging to people because it forces them to focus on themselves as victims of disadvantaged groups rather than encourage them to strive, as individuals, to be the best they can be.

If the results of liberals' policies — as opposed to their good intentions, posturing and virtue signaling — count for anything and if the ideas they promote are as dehumanizing as they appear, though many individual liberals may have enormous hearts, the ideology to which they are in thrall is stunningly uncompassionate.


David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh

About David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His latest book is “The True Jesus: Uncovering the Divinity of Christ in the Gospels.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com

  • 24 thoughts on “Liberalism a Dehumanizing Cancer that Will Eat Itself

    1. Why I wonder why people vote for the left, especially Black people. Republicans fought to free the slaves, Democrats fought to keep slaves. Republicans were for reconstruction of the South. Democrats started the KKK. Republicans were for the constitutional amendments that made Blacks citizens and gave them the right to vote. Democrats fought it. In the civil rights movement of the 60’s Republicans voted the laws in that desegregated schools and voting rights. Democrats fought them tooth and nail. Lyndon Johnson (Democratic President) Started his war on poverty so, (and I quote Johnson), “I will have those niggers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years”. The war on poverty has done exactly what Johnson predicted Kept Black people down. Its time people woke up and started using their brains instead of emotional leftist bull crap when they vote.

    2. Leftists are inherently anti-freedom and anti-humanitarian. ‘Nuff said.

      People can either choose to accept the Left’s Big Lie, or not. I choose freedom!

      Those who consciously choose the Big Lie are enemies of freedom, and therefore my enemy, and hopefully your enemy too. And what would our nation’s founders have us do regarding these enemies, foreign and domestic? That should be our goal.

    3. Call them anything you want, they are still communist in socialisms sneaking, creeping, snaking ways. They are now out of the closet but some are still hiding and cowering to strike when they think it will gain them something. This does not include just democrats, there are a growing number of RINOs. We won’t be able to depend on any of them when it comes to the time we have to take this country back.

    4. And I agree that Limbaugh should know better than to surrender the label Liberal to the Progressive Left, as they have abandoned all the ideas of Classical Liberalism to one component of the GOP coalition (certainly not the entire party). Alas, how far the Democrats have fallen from former glory! Strange that in this era ‘conservatives’ are the actual ‘liberals’.?!?

      1. Liberalism’s origins evolved out of the 18th century Enlightenment, principally from theorists like John Locke and other similarly minded thinkers. The root meaning of liberalism is liberty, not anachronistically egalitarianism, socialism, progressivism or marxist/leninism. It has nothing to do with fascism or communism, where the former is an autocratic marriage between corporatism and government, while the latter is pure totalitarianism. It also is not conservatism or libertarianism as practiced today, though such ism’s advocate and support some of Liberalism principles.

        Today’s Democrat machine is totally devoid of liberals; there are none in any caucus or faction of the party. Its elected leadership & cadre national or local aspire to autocracy in all its virulent ism’s and forms, which is anathema to political liberty, free enterprise, free markets and capitalism. They hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and all the Illustrious Documents of the Founding simply because such instruments of REPUBLICAN self governance stand in the way of their consolidation of power and control. And I mean republican as a form of government that’s structures and powers are delineated in our Constitution, not today’s Republican party which is not the same thing.

        Our government is a Republic, not a Democracy. The simplest definition of Democracy is what the word means, People Power or Rule. To make it short and sweet DEMOS is a Majoritarian Order, in service to the Majoritarian Will, in pursuit of Majoritarian Power. The vast majority of attempts historically resulted in anarchy, chaos and war. The only DEMOS that succeeded was Athens that culminated in one of the most ruthless empires in history. Tyrants like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao lusted for such power but feared it, because they recognized they would far no better than the great war leaders of Athens who were to a man either imprisoned, ostracized, hunted or executed.

        Our founding revolutionary generations had a belly full of the insane anarchy that raged during the revolution. The Continental government had no control or influence over the nascent states, and the states had zero control over local authorities, or more correctly the local committees of public safeties that ruled everywhere. Our first national government was a Confederacy which attempted to establish order out of chaos and failed spectacularly. That near disaster led to the Continental Convention in 1787, which also almost failed. The revolutionary generations fought for liberty, not a government. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, recognized that what the framers had wrought was doomed to fail. He and the Federalist’s promised a Bill of Rights that enshrined the unalienable rights and liberties the revolutionary generations fought for. That sealed the deal, or what’s known as the greatest compromise in history.

    5. whether Sen. Kamala Harris is “black enough” to be president, as her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian.

      but the REAL QUESTION, the one NO ONE is asking is this:

      IS SHE AMERICAN ENOUGH?

      The answer to that one is, of course, NO< SHE IS NOT AMERICAN ENOUGH to be president. And she KNOWS it.

      WHO will call her out on this?

      Her Jamaican father and Indian mother are neither one citizens, thus SHE is not Natural Born CItizen and is therefor ineligible.

      She CANNOT be placed on the ballot. Remember the mess we're still slogging through from the last one that was not qualified? Yes, I refer to the kinyun. Not only is he NOT "natural born citizen" he is likely not even an American citizen at all. T

    6. The hypocrisy in this intentional sowing of even deeper division would be hilarious if it weren’t inherently and intentionally celebrating the pure will of the Antichrist.

    7. True liberals support ALL the over 30 civil rights granted us by the Constitution. The second amendment is only one of our civil rights. Don’t confuse liberals with hoplophobes.

    8. Do you think if we continue to ask to be cursed that god will let us be so, just like he let the ancient Hebrews have a king? “We” continue to call scum liberal and then wonder why we get more of the same.

      Isaiah 32:5-8 King James Version (KJV)5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

      Liberal \Lib”er*al\ (l[i^]b”[~e]r*al), a. [F. lib[‘e]ral, L.
      liberalis, from liber free; perh. akin to libet, lubet, it
      pleases, E. lief. Cf. {Deliver}.]
      1. Free by birth; hence, *befitting a freeman* or gentleman;
      refined; noble; independent; free; not servile or mean;
      Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

      Liberty \Lib”er*ty\ (l[i^]b”[~e]r*t[y^]), n.; pl. {Liberties}
      (-t[i^]z). [OE. liberte, F. libert[‘e], fr. L. libertas, fr.
      liber free. /See {Liberal}.]*
      1. The state of a free person; exemption from subjection to
      the will of another claiming ownership of the person or
      services; freedom; — opposed to slavery, serfdom,
      bondage, or subjection.
      Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

    9. “The GOAL of Socialism IS Communism.” – Vladimir Lenin
      Since this is true, we cannot allow socialism to ever take root. Unfortunately, there is a generational gap. While older, wiser men and women, who remember Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and all the other totalitarians, are dying off recent generations know NOTHING about socialism/communism except what the minions of $oro$ and other elites care to portray in the media, which is owned and controlled by the very same communists.
      DemocRATS have already embraced the tenants of communism falsely labeled as “socialism”.
      Think on this:
      Bernie was an experiment. He knew far in advance he was NEVER going to be the nominee for the dem party. His role was simple. Run on the democRAT party platform but continue mentioning he was a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. A simple play on words. The experiment was clear – find out after the elections how many people voted for a socialist; find out the age groups(s), gender, state-by-state locations; basically it was a demographic information gathering. Now, the elites had all the info to strategically place other socialists in the running for office in the mid-terms.
      Bernie walked away with a new house (3 in all now) a brand new, high tech sports car and another chance to run again in 2020.
      We saw what took place in the mid-terms. Dead and illegal voters aside, we now have several socialists in the House with several more on the way in 2020. This has been planned for several decades – the eventual take over of America by communists – this country is the “golden egg” – the big prize.

      “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” ― Norman Thomas

      “The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideals of socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.” ― Norman Thomas

      We have traitors in all levels of government. We are at war with whatever name you wish to call it but in the end it is totalitarianism – a handful of elite ruling over the masses.
      The GOP showed their true colors at the Kavanah hearings (remember that?) and mid-terms. Lindsey graham cracker seemed to have grown a couple when he scolded the democRATS. But almost overnight he’s revealing himself to be the slimy creature he always was by supporting a federal “Red Flag” law. ALL politicians LIE just to get into office. Their ONLY concern is their retirement package and the money they can make while in CONgress and afterwards. They do not care about people, the Constitution and the tireless work it takes to protect both.
      Socialism is a front for communism; just another code word by the elite to fool the sleepwalkers. Liberalism is a fancy word to make one feel less guilty of sabotaging the country into communism.

    10. Sorry. Wrong terms. If you continue to allow authoritarians to misuse the language you are going to lose the battle. The term you are seeking is “Progressive.” Liberal are the people who populate the majority of the Republican party. Free markets, individual liberty, rule of law…………………. Progressives believe one simple truth. God is dead because they killed God and they have become God. Progressives believe they can use the power of the state to make human beings “better” and build a utopia. Liberals, libertarians and most conservatives do not believe that. They do not believe that because they believe in the Law of Nature’s God and original sin. So, make that correction in your Newspeak Dictionary, Mr Limbaugh. Stop adding to the maze of authoritarian confusion. Speak with clarity. Progressive. Not Liberal.

        1. The first Progressive was not, in fact (as opposed to imagination), Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy was a conservative who saw that the excesses of a generation of robber barons was going to stress the unique genius of the American system to the breaking point. TR basically hijacked Progressivism with his “New Nationalism”, reformed the system and saving it, and held in check both the Radical Progressives and the party bosses in both the GOP and the Democratic Party, both hopelessly corrupt. IF he hadn’t split the party in 1912 and allowed the corrupt elitist and racist Woodrow Wilson to bring the worst impulses of both the Old South and the Progressive North into power, we would likely be in a better place as a nation.

    Leave a Comment 24 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *