Further Penetrating Of The Liberal Mindset

By Michael Parish

As we've discussed previously on this blog, the Left, those impeccable purveyors of Enlightenment rationality and objectivity, suffer from a striking epistimological paradox: while claiming a monopoly on the overwrought ideals of 1789, it is impossible for them to rationally comprehend and acknowledge any views that deviate even slightly from their own.This brings to them to a second, even stranger paradox, that being the immediate dismissal of those views to the bleachers of irrationality (which these days is called bigotry). In the process, those modernist notions become increasingly exposed for the hollow rhetoric they are. A recent example of this....

Michael O' Powell, in the leftist rag Gonzo Times, had this to say of my Bay Area comrade Andrew Yeoman...

"In Bay Area, Hate Has Its Spokesman"

Uh oh...a turd in their silver punchbowl...

"Ethno-Nationalism By The Bay"

Already ethno-nationalism is conflated without explanation with "hate."

"The Bay Area is known throughout the world as being a beacon of tolerance, liberalism, and multiculturalism. Known for producing the likes of Harvey Milk and Rachel Maddow or for Vietnam protests and the Berkely Free Epeech movement, it's known far less for its speakers of far right hatred. However, that does not mean they're not there."

Yes, we all know what San Fransisco is known for. Notice how the meaningless cliche "tolerance" and the misguided experiment "multiculturalism" are situated right next to the vague term "liberalism" which you are intended to accept as a synonym for rationally progressive social structures? Notice how they refer favorably to the Berkely Free Speech Movement (a repeat of which would serve that institution well by the way) while alluding forebodingly to a supposed "speaker of far right hatred"?

"On August 11th, in the wake of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling repealing Proposition 8, Andrew Yoeman took to the website of Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) and wrote, "Irrespective of what one thinks about the phenomenon of gay marriage, we are bothered by a federal judge who has ruled something approved by the people of California is unconstitutional without providing any rational basis for which that assertion is true. This is judicial tyranny against the people, and should be recognized as such by everyone, wherever they reside on the politcal spectrum."

It's not as if Walker is calling for the mobilization of federal troops to intervene and massacre Californians, so I would relegate Yeoman's assesment of this as "federal tyranny" to the exageration file. But it is a significant event, in that it's an instance of a liberal violating liberal principles in the pursuit of liberal ends. That he has not furnished a "rational basis" for his assesment of the ruling matters only scarcely-political ideology is largely a matter of emotion and aesthetic preference, with "reason" but convenient window dressing. His decision will not be recognized that way by those on the Left side of the political spectrum, who are more than willing to weight the dice when it yields the wrong (for them) numbers.

"It takes significant digging to find the ideology that lay underneath his talk of democracy standing up against tyranny, but if you talk to him long enough, it does manifest. Elaborating on his opposition ot the desicion of Judge Walker, Yeoman argued "The regulation of marriage in the accepted in the legal domain as a state level issue that the people of California have decided should be between a man and a woman. This really has nothing to do with the militant minority that want to radically change the legally and socially accepted basis of a family but everything to do with what the people of California believe is fair and just."

Actually it takes no significant digging at all...his defense of desicions made at the state level is based on the legal concept of states rights, one of the basic tenants of American paleoconservatism. It bears more than passing familarity to most. That is the dangerously subversive ideology you oh so ominously referred to? Notice how the second half of Yoeman's argument was based on a defense of majority preference a.k.a. democracy, which the Left exalts in the abstract, but casts pejoratively as a sinister "ideology" when it fails to yeild their desired results.

"Yeoman alluded further that the redefinition of marriage amounts to an affront on the cultural

history of Western Civilization." "I have been called a hateful bigot for believing that a family should consist of a gender pairing that has defined not just this country but western civilization for as long as there is documentation for. That does not give militants on this issue the right to attack me and others that believe the same as me with the hateful hysteria they are accusing us of."

Notice how he explains in clear detail his position on this issue and refers specifically to the ideology adhered to by the author of this article...and he is still branded with the "bigot" label. And also how he his comment about "the hateful hysteria they are accusing us of" is embodied by the article itself. This author can't even tell when his own self (or kind, in this case) is being referred to.

Poor Andrew can't even defend himself from the accusation of "bigotry" without being condemned in an article by a clueless author who reaffirms the same.

The article then drifts on to some background information on Andrew that is largley irrelevant here. But the warped (mis)perception of the world is clear-holding views that deviate even slightly from the egalitarian-interchangability paradigm instantly makes you a bigot. And a radical bigot at that. That Andrew implicitly believes in separate societal roles for straights and queers (and separate rules for both) is sufficient to warrant his classification as a "speaker of hatred." And as a speaker of "far right" hatred no less...even though his view is indistinguishable from that of most mainstream conservatives, and apparently, most mainstream Californians.