To be a leftist is to be enmeshed in guilt. They are to shame what the cicada is to song. Unease and discomfort permeate their views — of which they unfortunately have many. Everything in their eyes is suspect, be it country, ethnicity, religion, or any action that advances self-interest (the horror!). Of course, their brand of guilt is unusual. It’s not your father’s, mother’s, or ancestors’ version of the sensation. Their self-flagellation has no correlation with increased personal responsibility. The feeling is nebulous and rarely applies to their own behavior, as the leftist lacks entirely the capacity for introspection. More than a little is wrong with them and, as they cannot fix their deficiencies via the normal means, their preferred form of therapy is immersion in politics. Progressive (read: regressive) crusades boost their self-esteem. The poses they affect buoy them through thousands of self-inflicted storms. Perpetually they wield a trump card that conservatives cannot acquire. The leftist “cares” or at least pretends to as they emote brazenly over the nation’s fabricated problems. Their sanctimonious proclamations and simultaneous refusal to be influenced by “common sense” — which, after all, is so common — places them upon a pedestal.
In juxtaposition, conservatives are at a disadvantage. We try to solve dilemmas that actually exist, a less sexy and glossy approach indeed. That the left’s ideas invariably lead to ruin is of little consolation because by the time their follies are discovered they’ve already moved on to a new boondoggle.
As opposed to responding to what actually is or to the impact their much-beloved programs have on the underclass, pseudo-liberals incriminate shadowy villains to whom they have only a vicarious relationship.
They become outraged over the beliefs or actions of “society,” Caucasians, “the rich,” or Western civilization as a whole instead of their own malignant personalities.
Any element to which they are loosely affiliated, like the aforementioned plagues, becomes bad while those involving “the other” are invariably good. Their ideology represents the victory of reductionism over logic and Manichean superstition over fact.
Sadly, like vain politicians and cockroaches, pseudo-liberals will always be with us. Yet psychologically their florid displays of pathology are better suited for psychiatric analysis than for political leadership.
Why improve yourself, the economy, or the nation when you can adopt an unctuous air and accuse those who disagree with you of PC crimes and/or genocide?
As with Woodrow Wilson — truly one of their own — they express love for humanity but disdain actual human beings. They have no objection to members of the general public, provided they remain theoretical constructs and avoid visiting their offices.
To guilt merchants and pity purveyors, no cause is more holy than that of the Western woman. Their reverence towards these creatures — once thought to be merely the equals of men — knows no limit.
Many foreigners, especially those outside of Europe, comprehend that American women need no protector as they are among the most privileged persons on this earth.
Yet pseudo-liberals know better and reject obvious indicators of female transcendence. They give a wink and a nod to the machinations of radical feminists who despise equality and for whom female supremacy is a constant goal.
Of course, sophistocates discount the impressions of plebes like me. To them women only appear to lead epicurean lives revolving around self-absorption, the pursuit of pleasure, and persistent entertainment.
Despite every experiential and statistical indicator, women remain oppressed. Should a given woman make less money than a man, it becomes de facto evidence of discrimination.
Conversely, if she makes more money she is also oppressed because she might enjoy working fewer hours or even prefer chucking away her “career” in the hopes of immersing herself in a hedonistic celebutard culture.
No matter what the complaint, there is only one thing for certain: the eternal male is to blame. His plausible crimes range from being too supportive or too unsupportive, and being too interested in sex or not interested enough — and that’s just the beginning! Never mind the why and wherefore, when a woman hurts, male guilt “has got to move.”
So it was from this societal netherworld that Barack Obama’s answer to a student in China arose. Oh, you don’t remember that mindless quip? He observed, “If you talk to women in America, they will tell you that there are still men who have a lot of old-fashioned ideas about the role of women in society.”
Which means what exactly? Obviously, as a devout conservative, I am one of those men under his ethereal indictment, but the particulars of the charge remain vague.
Admittedly, my views clash mightily with those held by radical feminists. I embrace equality and disdain the notion that one sex should reign supreme over the other. I seek to terminate affirmative action and ensure that no caste system exists in the U.S.
Moreover, one’s genitalia should never form the basis for societal privilege. While such a stance would unquestionably offend Obama and a plethora of the feministas who back him, there’s nothing retrograde about advancing equality.
As far as vocation is concerned, I believe that women should work if they want to and not work if they don’t. My “if it feels good, do it” approach to female choice isn’t exactly the stuff of the Taliban. Thus, Obama’s slant on this issue is worse than opaque.
As always with our post-modern president, one must read between the lines to ascertain meaning. His real lament seems to be that too few male submissives inhabit the America of 2009.
Apparently, my former senator wishes to douse in shame those XY types who continue to regard themselves as being the fully franchised counterpart to women. In his eyes, men must subvert their own desires and commit themselves to making members of the fair sex happy.
Our actions are not the problem though. It’s our thoughts, or as Barack put it, our “ideas,” that run afoul. Men must desist in defending their own interests and learn to regard women as lords in human garb. They are not to be ridiculed and they must not be held accountable for their behavior.
Educators in Australia have been quite audacious in their desire to meld young male minds. In Victoria, they have instituted compulsory feminist ed which “combat[s] common attitudes among boys such as young women are either ‘good girls or sluts.’”
The real purpose of such enlightenment is to ensure that no boy, upon becoming a man, objects to marrying a slut or is even capable of recognizing one should she drunkenly slither by on a Friday evening or stay over to press false charges of rape in the morning.
Cognitions are the problem. Men, historically speaking, have had a tendency to form them without consulting with women beforehand. This practice must end and our president is now providing us with proper notice of the fact.
Eventually they hope to usher in a utopia wherein every man promptly adopts female habits, and the married ones hyphenate their last names while making sure to kiss their dominatrixes’ boot before settling into bed.
The key thing to remember about this manipulation is that just because leftist women complain about men, there is no reason why any of us should listen. Hell is where such harpies belong even though we do not have the right to place them there.
Moreover, Pajamas Media is the acknowledged home of unreconstructed males. Men such as we are not the kind found or welcomed by the Democratic Party.
Yet it is hoped that independent or waffling males will read this article, take notice of events, and realize that they have no more business in the pseudo-liberal ranks than a vegetarian does awaiting free food from Bob Evans.
All self-respecting men must abandon the Democratic Party. Sausage is on the menu at Bob Evans, but males are in Progressive Land. Fellows, ask not for whom the feminist scolds — it’s you.