Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Gay-O-L: Huffington’s Suffocating Social Affirmation Hell

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/25


The assault on classical liberal values by the postmodern values nihilists, that is to say by those who make up that political sub-population of solidarity pimps whom we generally identify as collectivist, takes various forms.

Just the other day we witnessed a judge in Michigan frantically sawing at his We-Are-The-World violin as he endorsed the idea of saddling society (that’s all of you) with the responsibility of recognizing (legally as jurors) and implicitly affirming (socially) what is essentially an exercise in nonsense.

At least judge Friedman felt some necessity of providing himself with constitutional cover, or at least constitutional allusions and “bases”, which would seem plausible enough to the morons most likely to take his Kumbayist exercise in Talmudic constitutional subterfuge seriously. He could not be too blatant. After all he was purportedly talking about “the law” even though he was pretty much making it up to suit as he went along on the one hand, while striking down actual exercises in popular self-government, on the other.

In the case of AOL however, we witness a different kind of approach entirely. This method expresses itself as a completely unapologetic take over of a system in a way that is much more open. It pretends to no real justification other than an expression of progressive will or taste; i.e. a raw assertion that it will be “the way we want it to be because that is the way we want it to be”

In the latter AOL case, it resolves much more clearly and immediately to a mere matter of competing tastes and wills. And those who own AOL feel free, and in fact legally are free, to impose their wills and tastes on their site as normative; no matter how objectively repugnant those views and “values” may be to non-nihilists.

It therefore boils down to a simple matter of those who do not like the ideological and cultural line AOL is nowadays peddling, being invited to shut up or go elsewhere; as the Huff-Po’s recent news story commentary rules make plain. It’s “Vote yes here, or vote yes there.” or be damned.  And as the service costs nothing to users, I suppose it is fully worth what is paid by them.

Fair enough then it seems.  It is a private enterprise.

Well almost fair enough, since it does not seem to be the belief of so-called progressives in general that the reciprocal of a contrary policy in some other venue would be equally “fair”, be that venue private or not.

Progressives, in their intolerance, almost appear to be assuming that certain objective and universal standards do in fact exist, and ought to be in universal operation because they are right in some cosmic sense. But by now we all know better than that, and that to imagine so  would be to mistake the sound of progressive polling booth rhetoric for the reality of  progressive aims, progressive world-shaping efforts and progressive schemes of programmatic domination.

As Richard Rorty admitted, what they want is, in the final analysis, just an expression of what they want and “value”; and as such they feel no obligation to grant to those whom they do not respect, who do not fit, or refuse to fit, as part of their progressive social circle of taste and urges, the same rights of political free speech, debate, and presumptive intellectual respect which were granted to them;  and which thereby allowed them in the first place to work their way into the positions of social and political influence they presently enjoy.


Again, as political progressive and “ironist” philosopher Richard Rorty stated:

The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire “American liberal establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy. Had they read Habermas, these people would say that the typical communication situation in American college classrooms is no more herrschaftsfrei [domination free] than that in the Hitler Youth camps.

These parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students….When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual ….

The racist or fundamentalist parents of our students say that in a truly democratic society the students should not be forced to read books by such people—black people, Jewish people, homosexual people. They will protest that these books are being jammed down their children’s throats. I cannot see how to reply to this charge without saying something like “There are credentials for admission to our democratic society, credentials which we liberals have been making more stringent by doing our best to excommunicate racists, male chauvinists, homophobes, and the like. You have to be educated in order to be a citizen of our society, a participant in our conversation, someone with whom we can envisage merging our horizons. So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.” Emphasis added
(Hadn’t fully realized this quote was available on Edward Feser’s website even though I have become a semi-regular reader in the last two years. The Internet cite I previously used in earlier references to this quote  has since disappeared from the Rorty’s Wikipedia  entry, )


This then is what progressivism is about, and why progressives must seek to ever narrow the realm of the private. For the views and ideas they wish to eradicate, the metaphysical questions they wish to rule out of bounds or obsolete, the troublesome concepts of objective truth and reality they wish to eliminate, they wish to eradicate not just from public institutions but from “society” at large.
Just as “democracy” in communism comes to stand for “economic democracy”, which breaks down to the common ownership of all means of production; so too “democratic society” in progressive-speak comes to mean the complete progressive domination of all intellectual activity: Progressive totalitarianism; the social solidarity state, that is to say progressive fascism.
Now this posting probably constitutes at least the third time I have quoted this son-of-a-bitch Rorty on this passage, on this site. I have done so repeatedly because he, and it, epitomize what the traditional American who falls within the classical liberal tradition, is facing when he confronts the modern liberal organism, aka the politically progressive solidarity pimp. More Americans than ever before do of course recognize the fascist and totalitarian core to the progressive sociopolitical project.
Nonetheless, Rorty’s quote should probably be permanently emblazoned as a warning over every site where people who have some interest in genuine human political freedom gather.


11 Responses to “Gay-O-L: Huffington’s Suffocating Social Affirmation Hell”

  1. Another Page was made per a suggestion you made in this article.


  2. DNW said

    John Hitchcock said
    2014/03/25 at 18:20 e

    Another Page was made per a suggestion you made in this article.”

    If you mean Dana’s, it was probably his article that led me to take mine out of the limbo bin. Frankly I don’t particularly like posting on how “gay” matters intrude their way into the lives of we who have no interest in, and no moral necessity for taking an interest in, their absurd, and to be a bit brutal about it, noxious behaviors.

    Dealing with “gays” is like arriving at that cabin in the woods and discovering just as you are about to enjoy your time there, the rotting carcass of some dead animal that dug its way under the porch. It should not be there in the first place, it adds nothing whatsoever to the quality of your life, but its noxious and potentially poisonous effluvia cannot unfortunately just be ignored.

    But there it is. As they say, they are queer, they are here, and apparently they are determined to foul everyone’s systems of associative relations … just like that nihilist dweeb from New Zealand who cannot abide others’ indifference to his autogenic and neurotic pain.

    This following phrase, and it probably deserves a posting of its own, might be the most critical operative phrase in Rorty’s little diatribe quoted above. Rorty says, “There are credentials for admission to our democratic society, credentials which we liberals have been making more stringent …”

    Thus, while conservatives sputter … “Hey you are changing the rules by extra legal methods narrowing our rights of free association and self-governance”; the progressive laughs, and says “Well Duh!”

    That phrase then opens a door into the inevitably totalitarian and fascist clockwork of the postmodern liberal mind (even as their conceits assure them that that is what they are fighting against), and thereby reveals the progressive activist’s eschatological framework: one which pushes relentlessly, unceasingly, and perhaps even apocalyptically toward some “end of history” and the bringing about of their kingdom of post-individual, polymorphous perverse, bliss as they say. The goal is the inauguration of a post-human world really.

    It’s a world they cannot clearly envision now, but feel driven to try and bring about; even as they reduce all humanity and themselves to the status of a kind of meaningless field of brute fact impulses and “appetites”.

    But, we’ve covered this ground before, many times.


  3. Rorty’s quote should probably be permanently emblazoned as a warning over every site where people who have some interest in genuine human political freedom gather.

    This is the suggestion, and if you look at the tabs at the top, you’ll see the new page.


  4. Eric said

    This attempt at thought control might be disturbing, except I doubt Rorty and his pals have nearly as much influence as they think they have. They might think their students agree with them when in fact most of them have long since learned that the route to an easy A (or at least a B) is to regurgitate their bilge back at them rather than stating their true views and risking a D or F.


  5. AOTC said

    University is now a womb of leftist controlled warm security for young people who have been shielded from consequences and reality. I think the idea they might pretend to go along with the leftist ideology to get good grades indicates an even more ruthless vacuum of humanity.

    little black holes of need and appetite without conscience (R) TM


  6. AOTC said

    I don’t even have words for this. It does however paint a picture of the chaos that is the liberal mind. In its own words.


  7. DNW said

    AOTC said
    2014/04/03 at 07:07 e

    I don’t even have words for this. It does however paint a picture of the chaos that is the liberal mind. In its own words.

    Yes, That article pretty well summed up where the left seems to feel they are headed and what milestones they see as constituting human progress … “Human” in quotation marks of course, as we nod toward all the conservative criminal-isms having to do with gender, and species, and morals and so on.

    The rhetorical platitudes of “family” and “nation” got a good laugh out of me and I used a Disquis registration to try and post a comment under an AOL screen name I have had for years for occasional non-business related use.

    We’ll see if it takes. Though in all honesty, nothing I said there is anything I have not already said here and elsewhere many times before.


  8. DNW said

    Well, AOTC I guess it finally took. But although the name was the same as the AOL account name, it registered through another e-mail account having the same ID. You know, one naturally wants to keep say, Yahoo and AOL, and Google consistent if you are forced by using these web sources to have an email account in more than one of them.

    So, I’ll tell you this business of comment registration is getting somewhat trying. Google for example, when used as a validator, wants to default to a personal name attached to the account rather than an e-mail account name; AOL/the Huff Po wants to do the same when validating a comment, by linking through your AOL account to a Facebook account.

    What’s superficially strange about all of this, is that when I was along with Art Downs and others debating the RKBA on the AOL forum years ago, I was one – along with many other rights advocates – that used a straightforward and main e-mail account name much like the one you see here, instead of a smart alecky and completely false nom de guerre. Art was probably the only one using an address traceable name. And that was probably because he had been with them since the early days, before it was discovered to be inadvisable.

    The lefties, always fond of making or implying personal threats, always screeched loudest if they thought that they were in danger of being, as Perry puts it, “outed” after overstepping.

    They did not really want to meet at the river at dawn with pistols, nor even duke it out in a parking lot. What they wanted to do was harass; and if they got the chance to know anything about you personally, to libel by name and address. Lying means nothing to a left-liberal activist (or troll) apparently … as you might well expect of people who as a class believe that the ends justify the means, truth is an illusion, and that honor is a patriarchal concept fit only for Neanderthals.

    Strange then to see lefties who as a class once objected so strongly, all nowadays demanding not only the display of consistent and responsible posting identities, but personal information as well.

    Ah, maybe it’s not strange at all, eh?


  9. DNW said

    Don’t bother chasing the link looking for my comment. Something is screwy there. An uncorrected version that went up as I was trying to register, but notified that I was rejected, appeared, as well as the text I later inserted, having had the foresight to “right click” it in process. Both versions are in some odd location. Neither worth bothering with, unless one is interested in looking at what managed to escape through a disappearing window before being fully gestated.

    What probably happened is that when I interrupted myself before finishing, in order to register, the post was saved by them. And then when I redid it based on what I had copied with my mouse and clipboard as a safety measure, they both went up. Maybe I can figure out a way to delete the unchecked one LOL


  10. AOTC said

    Oh i found it, and it was glorious. 🙂

    The Mozilla brewhaha is interesting . Perhaps going to either toast our muffins or get us fired up. It looks looks like the progressives have actually pulled the mask off. Im thinking they have fled the right some time ago and having inhabited the left more recently have decided to go bold and show their own identity. You, on another thread, mentioned a metaphor about demon possession in regards to such. It is remarkably descriptive of this development.. You might be on to something.


    “One of the things that surprised me when I first read the New Testament seriously was that it talked so much about a Dark Power in the universe—a mighty evil spirit who was held to be the Power behind death and disease, and sin. The difference is that Christianity thinks this Dark Power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong. Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.
       Enemy-occupied territory—that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage. When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and intellectual snobbery. I know someone will ask me, ‘Do you really mean, at this time of day, to re-introduce our old friend the devil—hoofs and horns and all?’ Well, what the time of day has to do with it I do not know. And I am not particular about the hoofs and horns. But in other respects my answer is ‘Yes, I do.’ I do not claim to know anything about his personal appearance. If anybody really wants to know him better I would say to that person, ‘Don’t worry. If you really want to, you will. Whether you’ll like it when you do is another question.'”
    —from Mere Christianity


  11. […] AOTC on Gay-O-L: Huffington’s Su… […]


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: