by populistindependent » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:33 pm
Are there hidden agendas behind modern liberalism, and is that a source for much of the confusion?
I have been debating with people about gun control and organic, among other issues, in recent days on various boards. I have argued that in each case we need to look at whether or not the advocacy of the positions can actually achieve the purported goals. Can the organic movement actually achieve the goals of safer food and improved sustainability? Has it? Can the gun control movement actually achieve the goal of less gun violence? Has it? As with many liberal causes, we have an odd situation – while the public overwhelmingly supports the goals of the movement, this somehow can never be translated into political reality and the issues remain contentious and deadlocked in bitter (and mindless) debate. Advocacy seems to suppress rather than to advance the purported goals – the more advocacy, the more resistance and confusion, and the less chance for consensus and results.
Worse yet, beyond the undeniable fact that the methods are not working to advance the alleged causes, in case after case the wealthy and powerful – the perpetrators – skate and are untouched by the movement, or are even able to successfully co-opt it, while the working class stiff is left to bear the brunt of liberal wrath.
What I am running into is a deep resistance on the part of liberals to critical consideration of liberal causes as methods and examinination of their relative effectiveness at reaching the purported goals. The methods – the tactics and strategies – are defended as though they were the goals, or as though criticizing them were tantamount to attacking the underlying principles and ideals. For example, all who are opposed to the slaughter of innocent children by madmen must then therefore be in favor of gun control and support the gun control movement and anything it proposes, and those who are not in favor of gun control are then presumed to be in favor of the slaughter of innocent children by madmen. All those opposed to people being poisoned and the environment being destroyed must therefore support the organic movement, and all those not supporting the organic movement are therefore presumed to be in favor of people being poisoned and the environment being destroyed. The ends and the means are to be seen as one and the same. One means, and only one means is to be considered. All those objecting in any way to the means being employed is subject to being smeared as the enemy of all that is right and good in the world.
I have noticed this for a while, but just the other day stumbled upon a possible explanation. For a long time, I thought this was just a matter of people being more interested in identifying with the cause for personal emotional reasons – wearing the official approved uniform and acting out the part in the script as one of the good guys - than they were with actually analyzing the problem and developing methods for attacking it effectively. Modern people have a curious inability to see themselves as causative agents in a world where objective reality can be recognized and analyzed and they increasingly rely on a sort of second hand activism of “think positive” mysticism – “visualizing results” and “changing their mantras” and “being the change they wish to see.” In other words, if a person has the “right” spiritual stance in the world, that will mysteriously produce desired results. Many liberals go so far as to insist that this is the only way to achieve anything, and characterize anyone who rejects this as some sort of “un-evolved” and unenlightened person who is unable to grok the true meaning of all things and refuses to get into harmony with the grand plan of the universe. "The only way to change the world is to change yourself" we are told.
Much of liberal advocacy is couched in the language of mysticism, by the way, and mysticism is inherently anti-democratic: only the few achieve enlightenment and the many must rely on the guru or wise one to interpret truth for them and so settle for second-hand wisdom. It also requires arcane and specialized training or gifts that are not available to all.
But why the persistent and deep-seated resistance to any and all critiques of what are essentially methods – tactics and strategies? It is as though we are all being invited to get on a bus that we are told is going to Chicago yet we keep winding up in Kansas City. At some point, one naturally enough feels an urge to take a look at the map they are using. Yep, it says right on it “The Map to Chicago” and the bus is all painted up “Chicago Express.” Everyone is wearing their “Headin' for Chicago” buttons and tee shirts. But the map is all messed up and will never get anyone to Chicago. Mention that and you are assured by all that it is the Right Map, by God, and people point to where it says “The Map to Chicago” right on the top and say “see? It is the map to Chicago. You DO want to go to Chicago, don't you? Hmmm? Shut up and get on board. Or are you one of 'them?'” You may then be attacked and accused off secretly not supporting the goal of getting to Chicago.
Actually, the Left is such a pathetic joke that in my bus analogy we should probably imagine the bus as having no motor and no tires, with the other passengers screaming at us “do something!!! At least we are doing something instead of just sitting around criticizing like you! Get out and push!!” We should probably also imagine the bus as starting out in Kansas City, never leaving, and never going anywhere.
Why might there be so much resistance to critical analysis of the methods and approaches – the tactics and strategies – used ti promote the liberal causes? Why are the methods defended as though they were the causes themselves rather than merely means to an end?
Then this morning I read a post on an abortion thread at another site and it all came together. I usually avoid abortion threads and don't even read them and don't really care to debate the issue, and using it as an example requires not only daring to touch, but to firmly and boldly grasp with both hands the penultimate and quintessential third rail of modern liberalism – feminism. We are not to touch that one, especially as men. We all know that, yet we also must pretend that we don't know that and pretend that there is no such taboo on exploring the subject. One errant phrase can get one in hot water very quickly – it will be taken out of context and cited as “proof” that the author is “sexist” which will lead to responses of “outrageous!! unforgivable!!” and people will blow up the thread or even the group rather than allow this to happen.
There is one very simple and obvious explanation. If there were a hidden agenda – if the purported goals were not the goals at all – then critical investigation and discussion about the methods would reveal the hidden agenda. What are the hidden agendas? Attacks on working class men, under the guise of feminism, attacks on farming and other traditional community activities in which men have meaningful roles under the guise of organic and environmentalism, attacks on the working class under the guise of gun control, and at all times promotion of the interests of the ruling class. New Age pseudo-Asian mysticism is the perfect context for these attacks, since it makes people turn inward and ignore objective external reality while it separates and divides us and taps us all in isolated Hells of personal experience and encourages blaming people for their circumstances, makes the goal posts easy to move should the working class start catching on to the scam, and creates power positions for supposed mystical gurus – enlightened ones to keep the flock in line through ridicule and bullying.
Everyone still with me, or have I touched off the distant early warning system and set off the alarm bells? - “Incoming!! Right winger detected!!”
The post:
“Men are irrelevant. They are only a source of one sperm cell. That sperm cell could come from any man, and represents no meaningful contribution to anything. An embryo is entirely the product of a woman's body, and she and she alone has sole power over it. Men have no importance, no legitimate reason for involvement - excepting as the women chooses - no say-so and no inherent right to be involved in any decisions involving pregnancy and childbirth.”
This was, judging from the context, intended to be an in-your-face, bottom line, “are we clear now?” statement – the presumed essence of the stance, the ultimate final word on the subject. “Men are irrelevant.”
A Republican interloper on the board then posted what no liberal dare post - “if that is true, then why do we still hold men responsible as fathers for paying child support?” The proverbial fart in a crowded room, there.
The alleged goal of feminism? Equal rights for women. Yep, we're going to Chicago. Or are we?
Let's take a sober look at the issue of gender equality in modern American society. We have every working stiff male half driven to distraction about what he says, what he does, what he thinks, lest he fail to be ever vigilant at rooting out every last vestige of the dreaded “sexism” virus. We have every traditional male working class occupation under assault from every direction – machinist, lumberjack, mechanic, farmer, fisherman are a few examples. We have collapsing families in the working class, the requirement of two incomes to maintain a household, custody battles and paternity disputes, men jailed for failure to pay child support while the ex-wife partners up and receives support from a new male, men viewed with mistrust and suspicion and their contact with children limited and strained, men who are teachers or coaches dreading the life-destroying charge of inappropriate behavior that true or false, will brand them forever. We have the erosion of the traditional male identity as sole bread winner.
None of that is meant to deny the abuse and discrimination faced by women, anymore than saying that working class whites are exploited is a denial of the existence of racism. Rather, it is to say that class warfare – an assault on the working class – lurks behind feminism and drives it and informs it and controls it. This shouldn't shock us or come as any surprise at all. The complete aversion over the last 30 years that liberals have for any hint of class analysis necessarily and inevitably leads to ruling class agendas permeating and dominating liberalism. Class warfare doesn't disappear because you ignore it, and all of the liberal causes are carefully tailored to function as ersatz substitutes for class analysis. “It isn't the wealthy and powerful who are exploiting you, it is your working class boyfriend and yahoos like him.” There is presumed to be something about maleness that is evil and not to be trusted.
And what is it that working class women now have the freedom to do? Cast off their working class partners, and make themselves available to potential ruling class partners in the giant harem known as corporate suburbia.
While working class marriages and families collapse at unprecedented rates, divorce rates among the wealthy are very low and families are stable. While working class men have fewer and fewer traditional male roles and occupations, ruling class men are heads of households and corporations, with more wealth and power then ever before, are still seen as primary bread-winners. And what about the little Mrs.-left-at-home in these ruling class marriages? They express complete satisfaction with their marriages at dramatically higher rates than working class women do – apparently having no problem with the male-dominated arrangements. Apparently the women's place is still in the home, it just depends upon the size of the home. It is the working class home that women are to be liberated from, and the working class husband.
Ruling class men are as likely to marry “out of class” as not – more so than ever - so that means that many of these happy wives are themselves from working class backgrounds, yet have no problem accommodating themselves to a world where men dominate and traditional male roles are still the norm.
Of course there are exceptions. Among the ruling class we can cite examples such as Martha Stewart, and among working class people we can look at family farms. On the farm gender-specific roles persist, but they are seen as co-equal and complementary. After all, there is nothing that makes plowing, seeding and fertilizing more glamorous, creative, interesting, important or powerful than baking, sewing, knitting, gardening, or selling at the farm market. There is nothing dominant or desirable about managing the barn as opposed to managing the home. (With the desperate labor shortage, there are also no barriers to people moving out of their gender roles, yet men and women still gravitate consistently to traditional gender roles predominantly when given the choice). But these are exceptions. For the most part ruling class families, marriages and relationships are stable and working class families, marriages and relationships are floundering and in disarray, with much attendant suffering.
Net result of the feminist movement: working class men no longer enjoy the support and loyalty of their women, ruling class men retain the support and loyalty of their women and their positions of power and prestige, and additionally, ruling class men have a wider range of choices for sexual partners. Advantage: the ruling class.
Apply the same analysis to each liberal cause. Gun control? Are we to imagine that the wealthy and powerful will be giving up their armed bodyguards or their gun collections anytime soon? No. It is targeted at working class people. Organic? A spectacular windfall profit making opportunity for the ruling class, while working class farmers are placed under suspicion and attacked.
The purported goal of the gun control movement is less violence. The purported goals of organic are safer food, sustainable farming and less impact on the environment. Those are goals that are broadly supported by the public, and millions have been spent on promoting the causes. Yet neither movement has, or ever will, bring us any closer to the purported goals. In fact, the more activism, the worse things get. Yet the approaches and methods that the movements use cannot be questioned in any way, and whenever there is any danger of actually breaking the stalemate, the activists change the rules to maintain their elite and special status and keep the feud going about the subject, for carrers, salaries, positions of influencee, and personal identities are all dependent upon keeping the feud going and being able to take the "right" side in the feud. If the problems were actually solved, all of that would disappear. The means have become more important than the ends, and the means will never achieve the ends.
In each case, we are to think that there is something wrong with the people – they are not enlightened, they are making the wrong personal choices, they are to blame for all social problems. In each case, the predations of the ruling class are used as justification – examples of the “kind of society we live in” - for harassment, badgering and restrictions on working class people. Corporate agri-business destroys the environment and poisons our food, so therefore small farmers and poor consumers need to change their lives (in ways that are not possible for working class people to do.) The corporate boardrooms are dominated by men, so therefore you, working class male, must change in some vague mysterious way. The ruling class trumps up a foreign war – see? we are a violent society! - so you, working class male, must raise your consciousness and give up your firearms.
What is feminism? The nature versus nurture arguments are stale and unproductive. Maybe it is both, or neither. Feminism is the perfect set-up for the destruction of the working class - lots of victims and lots of perpetrators, and we all must look into our own hearts and see if they are pure, and the true political wisdom is entirely mystical - the few are enlightened and set the rules for all of the rest of us. What sort of politics says "we don't need men?" - half of the people in the working class. In the urban African American communities and in the rural agricultural communities young men are suffering terribly - they aren't needed, aren't wanted, have no role, no place. Women from both communities, however, are highly desirable as glorified handmaidens and concubines to the wealthy and powerful, no matter how that may be disguised as "progress" for women. There are vastly more opportunities for women in both communities. Why would that be? The ruling class wants the women, can use the women, and does not want the men. That isn't progress for women.
The rise of the merchant class and the unleashing of capitalism and the destruction of traditional communities and cultures - all very recent - has distorted everything, and if we fail to look at that and do not put things into historical perspective we are in danger of making broad generalizations about human nature based on a very recent and very unusual set of social circumstances - a civilization that has gone bad and has been stripped of its traditional culture.
The idea that there are no gender differences that are "real" so we can just socially engineer them away, or the idea that there are in fact inherent biological gender differences so the "solution" is for women to have nothing to do with men, are both utter rubbish.
Feminism is not a counterforce against a socialization process that oppresses half the population and serves the ruling class, it IS a socialization process that is enforcing gender differences of a new and bizarre kind, and is a potent weapon in the hands of the ruling class. We now have half the working class out of communication with the other half and working against each other. As for this business of "men are inherently evil because of their genetic makeup," I see that as akin to the "humans are a plague destroying the Earth" justifications for population reduction and as a symptom of a culture gone utterly mad.
The simple people can see the hidden agendas in the liberal causes, and that is why there is no working class solidarity and no Left in the country. They accurately see that modern liberalism is nothing more than one prong of an attack by the ruling class on the working class. The right wing prong they know and have seen since time began, and it is a known danger. (Rich man's war, poor man's fight; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). But modern liberalism is an entirely new threat, and they see it as the bigger threat of the two, and I have come to agree with them. They see what the smart people, blinded by their own arrogance and intoxicated with the intricacies of their own convoluted arguments, and bought off with status and prestige and trinkets, stubbornly refuse to see.
The men from Norwegian villages braving the North Atlantic to bring in the catch, as they had done for centuries, while the women kept home and hearth and raised the children is not an example of our "patriarchal society" nor a root cause of oppression. Would it have represented “equal rights” if the women also fished? Men traditionally took on the more dangerous tasks, not to be dominant or superior, but rather because men are biologically speaking more expendable, and because women and children were placed in a higher regard, not a lower regard. Men throughout history and in every culture, also thrive on danger and adventure, while women are more pragmatic and security oriented. Men were dominant in what could be called the “foreign affairs” of the family and the village, while women were dominant in the domestic affairs. If we are to see the child-bearing and raising role as a curse on women, as modern liberalism would have it, why do we not see the requirement to risk life and limb on the North Atlantic, not to mention the grueling and back breaking work, as a curse on the men? Why is not the social injunction that requires men to be prepared at all times and at any moment to give up their own life without hesitation to save the women and children not seen as oppression of men?
In modern society, the women are freed from the curse of bearing children, while the men are not free from the expectation to be a protector and a bread winner. In fact, the relative worth and value of modern men is judged more than ever on how materially successful he is. It has become almost a case of men being judged solely on their material success. Men are also still expected to do the dangerous and unpleasant tasks as they arise. Yet the ability of men to perform these roles in undermined and sabotaged at every turn, subject to ridicule and suspicion, and the opportunities to succeed more and more restricted and suppressed.
I see it on the farm. The young men want to stay, they want to farm. But the young women want to go off to college and move into corporate jobs and live in suburbia. Yet it is one in a hundred of these women who can express any career goal, any mission, any burning desire to a career. They are seeking “better” husbands, and the men are forced to follow and abandon the farm, go to work in some cubicle for some corporation, and try to become Alan Alda – neutered, tamed, gentrified, feminized. This is a function of the de-valuing and destruction of traditional male occupations, just as the problem in the AA neighborhoods is not the absence of the Black father in the home – a notion that supports racism – but rather the absence of jobs for Black males. This process serves the ruling class, and is merely cleverly disguised as “progress” for women.
Why does modern liberalism call upon us to turn inward in search of “bad” things that are supposedly deeply rooted somewhere in our make-up, so we can “improve ourselves?” Why are we to look into the heart and psyche of the poor working class people to find the “roots” of our social problems, which we are then to attack by conjuring up various New Age spirits to help us against the evil that lurks within, in pursuit of mystical personal enlightenment, which is then postulated as not only the best, but the only way to approach social problems? How does any of this differ from the white man's burden, or the modern concept of race as a tool for ranking human beings socially, or all of the rest of the excuses and rationalizations for the exploitation and enslavement of the many by the few?
What a neat trick. “It isn't that I hunted you down, and chained you in the bottom of a slave ship that caused the problems, it is your lack of enlightenment and your 'patriarchal' attitudes and backwards and archaic social conditioning that are at fault, so look inside yourself, and see where your faults lie, to find the roots of your suffering. At all times question yourself, and ask yourself 'what have I done to bring this upon myself? What is it about my attitudes and conditioning that suits me for being a slave?'” What the Hell difference do gender role differences make when you are chained in the hold of a slave ship?
Should the enslaved women have been given the “right” to be “freed” from child bearing and raising and from marriage and been given the “right' to perform “equal” work alongside the men? Should the women have been given the “right” to mate with more powerful and wealthy (white) men? The slave owners thought so. The ruling class still does.
