In my last article, The One-Armed Man And Liberalism, Dfordoom left the following comment.
and Liberalism always believes that that which is chosen is superior to anything natural or normal.
Except when it comes to sexuality. Modern liberalism exalts homosexuality and also insists that it is not chosen. It insists that homosexuals are born that way.
And in the case of the transgender ideology (which they also exalt) they insist (weirdly) that being transgender is not chosen. They insist that a man who "transitions" into a woman was born a woman and that that is unchangeable.
Modern liberalism certainly exalts the transgressive over the normal but when it comes to sexuality and "gender identity" they are rigid biological determinists.
Modern liberals also see race as something that is not chosen, hence the hostility towards Rachel Dolezal for daring to identify as black when she was born white.
Maybe what we're dealing with are two different models of liberalism that have nothing whatever in common. Old school liberals certainly believe that you can choose your destiny. The modern variety of liberal seems to believe the opposite.
Liberalism believes in choice, it believed in it yesterday, it believes it today and it will believe in it tomorrow. But life is complex, it doesn't always run in a straight line. Instead it takes detours and back roads, it even ends up in cul-de-sacs and has to retrace it's steps. Liberalism has this problem, it wants to run in a straight line but it must constantly change tac to deal with the things that oppose it. Homosexuality presented it with a problem.
Traditionally, it was viewed as unnatural, the problem for Liberalism was why would someone choose to be something that was unnatural?
The answer was to show that it was not unnatural, instead that it was totally natural. Not only was it natural but it unchosen, it was genetic, until no genetic marker was found. Nothing to notice, nothing to be upset about or disgusted by, because it was natural. That argument worked even better than they had hoped. But it also put them in a bind, how do you get rid of this argument and proceed to one were people choose their own sexuality?
For that is the position that Liberalism wants. The answer is transgenderism. Here are people who choose to be either male or female. However the enemies of Liberalism do not accept that these people choose. Instead we say that these people are mentally ill, because wanting to change from male to female or vice versa is unnatural. Which has put Liberalism into a bind. For the time being they are stuck, they cannot say that either homosexuality or transgenderism is a choice, because that leaves them open to the attack that these things are unnatural.
In the 1970's they tried to square this circle by pushing the idea of bi-sexuality, that sex was on a spectrum and that whatever someone choose was the right choice. That's what the B in LGBT stands for, but when was the last time you heard someone talk about it?
However that didn't work because both heterosexual and homosexual men rejected it. The aim is to find a way to make all sexuality about choice.
When it comes to race Liberalism does not like people changing race. It's views are long term, not short term. People changing race upsets Liberalism, but that does not mean that it supports race. What it wants is a raceless human race. They want race mixing, they want coffee coloured people. One human race were there are no races. But they want people to willingly choose this!
Here is the inherent contradiction within Liberalism, it wants people to choose, but people keep making the wrong choices. That 'forces' Liberalism to make choices for people, to protect them from making the wrong choice, to protect them for themselves.
To Help Support My Work
https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future
Another Article You Might Like?
When it comes to race Liberalism does not like people changing race. It's views are long term, not short term. People changing race upsets Liberalism, but that does not mean that it supports race. What it wants is a raceless human race. They want race mixing, they want coffee coloured people. One human race were there are no races. But they want people to willingly choose this!
ReplyDeleteAnd this puts them in another bind. If we had a raceless human race then we'd have no diversity. And a raceless human race could only be achieved by destroying all races, including the black race. But that would be racist.
You can't have race-mixing and racial diversity.
Modern liberals are also aiming for a single global mono-culture. One people, one culture. Everyone the same, holding the same opinions and having the same culture. But that's clearly racist. And since the single global mono-culture will be an American mono-culture it's also clearly neo-colonialist and imperialist.
The way out of the bind would be to insist on respect for all races and all cultures. Which is basically what old-fashioned liberals used to believe in. But modern liberals won't accept this.
The truth is that modern American liberals really are neo-colonialist and imperialist. White American liberals really do not have any respect for other people's cultures. White American liberals really do believe that white American culture is superior to every other culture and should be imposed on the whole world, by force if necessary.
But because their primary motivation is virtue-signalling they will not admit to this.