Humans are born with two arms, however sometimes nature or life mean that not every human has two arms. Most people, including myself, view this as sad, even tragic. We understand how useful it is to have two arms and how limiting it would be to only have one. You would think that this feeling would be universal, but it is not.
Liberalism has a real problem with things that are natural or normal. Because these things are not chosen and Liberalism always believes that that which is chosen is superior to anything natural or normal. It is simply happenstance for something or someone to be natural or normal. In fact if we are to be self made, if we are to be able to choose every aspect of our life, then the very idea that something is natural or normal is a great hinderance. These things are enemies and they must be shown to be unimportant, even non-existent. Here is where the one-armed man becomes important.
It doesn't matter how the arm was lost, at birth, from disease, accident, crime or war. What matters is that it is transformative, transgressive, or as they have started saying, nonnormative. It challenges the idea that it is natural or normal for people to have two arms. After all people having only one arm can still lead full and fulfilling lives. So if that is possible what does it matter if someone has one or two arms?
Liberalism uses this argument over and over again.
What does it matter if a children has one or two or three parents?
What does it matter if a man and a women or any combination of those get married?
What does it matter if people get married?
What does it matter if men become women or visa versa?
Note also how they turn the question around so that you are put on the defensive. You are asked to explain why something that is natural and normal should remain that way. They try to never be in that situation. To never have to explain why the crazy thing that they support is not crazy. Instead they say that the uncommon and bizarre is no different to the common and everyday. What does it matter if someone has one arm or two?
When the one-armed man becomes fashionable, we are supposed to celebrate people amputating their arm!
Instead of saying that the one armed man is an exception and that his life is hard because he has a handicap. They insist that his handicap is his strength. That it makes him a better person than those who have two arms, because he understands things that those with two arms can never understand. Of course it never matters whether that is true or not, it should matter but it doesn't. They insist that despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that having one parent, or arm, or some other handicap in life is no different to any other situation. While at the same time still insisting that they are better people because of it.
The worst case scenario is presented as the average experience. Which means that every argument is arguing against the wrong target.
We now live in a world were we can see the destruction that single parent households, divorce, transgenderism causes. We can see that real peoples lives are affected, even crushed. Yet we are always encouraged to view these things, things that we can see with our own eyes, as entirely positive. To do otherwise is to swim against the tide, but swim we must!
To Help Support My Work
https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future
Another Article You Might Like?
and Liberalism always believes that that which is chosen is superior to anything natural or normal.
ReplyDeleteExcept 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.