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

25
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
16 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
23 Comment authors
BillyJack FlashWilliam FlattDWEEZIL THE WEASELRobster Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Billy
Guest
Billy

Corporate cuckservatives are the literal cancer on earth. The only thing they’re fighting so hard to conserve is corporate greed and control. Cancer seeks to destroy the host with constant growth. Cuckservative economic growth and job creation are destroying us. Contrary to popular belief, money doesn’t enable our existence on this planet. The environments and ecosystems that are destroyed to ‘create jobs’ and ‘grow the economy’ does. Despite what yall think, your opinion and what you have faith in and want to believe doesn’t equate to decades of peer reviewed scientific fact. You show me a cancervative and I’ll show… Read more »

Jack Flash
Guest
Jack Flash

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… Read more »

William Flatt
Guest
William Flatt

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.

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

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.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Tcat, I call them green rat finks!

John C
Guest
John C

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’.?!?

Robster
Guest
Robster

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… Read more »

Tionico
Guest
Tionico

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… Read more »

Jesus
Guest
Jesus

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.

Cal Lamoreaux
Guest
Cal Lamoreaux

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.

EdH
Guest
EdH

It may eat itself in the long run but it will destroy a lot of good on the way.

Danko
Guest
Danko

I never liked communist even after they change their name to liberals.

goatmoag
Guest
goatmoag

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… Read more »

Mark R
Guest
Mark R

“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… Read more »

m.
Guest
m.

don’t care what u call yourself or what your motives are, i care about what u do.

david arnold robinson
Guest
david arnold robinson

Yes, but not before it eats all of us first.

Eighty
Guest
Eighty

So how do we combat it?

Chase
Guest
Chase

Easy, Kill them all!

n r ringlee
Guest
n r ringlee

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… Read more »

Robert J. Lucas
Guest
Robert J. Lucas

LEFT!

DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
Guest
DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

Keep in mind the first Progressive was Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. Look it up.

John C
Guest
John C

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… Read more »

DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
Guest
DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

n r ringlee, actually, they are not “progressive”, but regressive, and they are also Leftists.

Stephen M Toth
Guest
Stephen M Toth

What Bullshit!