[This post will use anecdotes with reference to US politics. It’s fine if you’re not familiar with it, they’re only supplementary. This post contains embedded content that I’ve seen to not load in the WordPress Reader.]
When I first got to college, I proudly identified as a progressive, a liberal. Little then did I know about the political foundations of this movement – What it was built on? What were they trying to accomplish? What were they basing their rhetoric on? Liberalism intrinsically appeals to the younger, politically active generation – that is in the present-day, Millennials – by using attractive rhetorics and popular opinion to give shape to their arguments. I’ll elaborate more on this statement later in the post but for now, let’s try and figure out how they manage to coerce so many people into joining their movement, let alone sustain themselves.
liberals cover their lack of information and/or intellect under the protective blanket of popular opinion
Humans like it simple. Any professor of communications will tell you how rhetorics single-handedly get more attention to marketing messages and political agendas. They are powerful and tell people that something ought to be innately true and no amount of evidence discrediting it can ever balance out. From the teachings of table manners in kindergarten classroom to your average liberal college campus where students get a hand on safe sex, rhetorics are extensively used in perpetrating these key messages. Popular opinion and rhetorics go hand-in-hand by complementing one another. Home appliance manufacturer Whirlpool uses the supposed possession of a 6th sense by their machines as a marketing message. Why 6th sense? It is believed to be a notion representing extraordinary diligence, a thing intrinsic to intelligent life – finding a central place in many sci-fi works. The premises for popular opinions may not be known by everyone, but the opinions are and that is what matters when you’re trying to convince a mass of people.
What the majority of people deem correct is also what rhetorics should learn to coincide with to resonate with their audience, and to get their message across with the strongest effect. If the majority of people in a political system deem homosexuality as appropriate – any rhetoric that wants to be successful at appealing to the most people must follow behind this popular consensus. Sometimes, they might help reinforce what’s already there or help incorporate a new idea into this existing base. Rhetorics are able to do this because people don’t readily question the rationality of it when they have or are already believing a higher opinion to be true, almost like they’re mathematical proofs.
Love trumps hate. The people united, will never be divided. No ban, no wall, immigrants are welcome here. This is what democracy looks like.
Change. Believe. Hope.
Does any of these ring familiar? I bet it does, you Antifa commies!
Before you judge this post for being some rightist propaganda, let me point out that I am a progressive whose personal ideologies sufficiently leans toward the liberal. As a member of the liberal ideology, I understand the importance of being politically correct – expressing ourselves with respect to the notion of what is right – of which is established as something that least offends the majority in a political system – like say a democratic institution like the United States. But as of late, I have been noticing a spike in debates on political correctness, it feels like they were reinstated by the 2016 election campaigns and the very election of the 45th president.
radicals emerge from their past insecurities about something they hold dear
Those of you following me on Facebook don’t need a briefing on my ideological stance when talking matters of scientific origin where unlike expressing myself in a non-formal, casual setting among friends or family or acquaintances where my liberal tendencies are predominantly visible, a more academic or scientific or philosophical debate that requires the apex of my intellectual faculties and the lesser of my emotional causes the liberal in me to all but completely fade away – like say debating the ethical conundrum of self-driving cars killing a handful of careless pedestrians or a lone occupant in the car or equal pay for both sexes and other hard topics.
Linda Sarsour, a famous name among the far-left and fellow of the Jihad movement had spoken in UCBerkeley about what she believes were hard topics of the day – addressing them through her own vigilante of justice. After what felt like a heartfelt call to action on white supremacy and prejudice against the Muslim community of America, she boldly incited Jihad in the name of Allah to fight the alt-right and the Trump administration. The brainwashed liberals of Berkeley played along as you’d expect of any ideology with basis in popular opinions of the day. To those who have witnessed the insidiousness of Islam, here you will find reason for the pressing questions you might have been wanting to ask. To those who have not read or experienced Islam, you will find factual arguments based in sociology, psychology and anthropology to the many debatable notions surrounding this religion. Platforms for open debate are often ostracized from the mainstream in submission to pressure (or more often, threats) from the Muslim community.
Islam lives for conquest, facilitated by a militant theological system that exploits its own people for the superficial gain of Allah – only to reward them under their paradigm
an aggressive agenda-driven movement can never peacefully coexist in secularity, especially if that agenda comes from the ideology of Islam
One evening in Chicago, I’d probably just returned from an exhausting day out and settled in to read the news. This was back in late 2016 and the trending stories of the day were either about the elections which we know as among the most bizarre in American history or the infamous travel ban, then dubbed the Muslim ban. Shortly after the ban had been called into effect, an almost spontaneous response from the local community followed. I read a story how people had already gathered and continued gathering in huge numbers outside Terminal 5 to try and stop the ban. Seeing I had nothing interesting to do, I put on my trusty jacket and headed out and took the next Blue Line service to O’Hare for some investigative journalism. This is where I was greeted by all kinds of warming chants. They were at best superficial and rhetorical but that’s what makes protests tick let alone the fact the crowd were predominantly liberals. There were more opinions than facts being pushed. One chant stood out, it went “this is what democracy looks like” only said in a slightly cringe-y yet poetic tone. Well, if there’s one thing I could do by going back in time would be helping them see their own hypocrisy.
Is it democratic to grant freedom to a group that might potentially take away our freedom? These are moral conundrums left on the hanging. These conundrums gain in controversy with passing time from our reluctance to initially approach these issues – because they’re controversial. It challenges hard-etched moral constructs our society has grown to embrace and be a part of. Ever since the cultural movements that shook France and the rest of Europe, the Renaissance and Enlightenment have left (the vast majority of) Christians indoctrinated with the civil qualities of equality and tolerance. The West has almost become synonymous with these civil liberties we take for granted.
I read this somewhere but I’m unable to trace it back to its author,
diversity is not our strength if there is no common cause
I’d previously discussed about forms of dogmatic theism such as Christianity and Islam. Dogma is just a fancy word for philosophy without thought. It is quintessentially the analog of telling a child what is good and bad – there is nothing that can innately fall into one of these two categories. Our concept of good and bad are philosophical constructs that have manifested over time from religion and philosophy itself. Unlike its successor, philosophy, religion does not reason with its followers or allow room for people to interpret its dogma and reason further – which can threaten its very existence and religious fundamentalists know all to well about that! The threat of Hell and a concept of the afterlife were carefully stipulated to keep people from reasoning with their religion but I’ll have to save more on that for an upcoming post titled Religion: Earliest Attempts At World Order.
This post will serve as a sequel to my previous post titled An Atheist On Religions. I had made several updates and added newer, thought-provoking discussions after its date of publication – I urge you to start there first or this post will seem like a drag. In this post, I want to clear up some of the ideas I may have presented and add my after thoughts. We will also get to understanding how and why certain religions continue to be ballsy – when their own people or outsiders challenge their ways – potentially threatening the integrity of their God’s word.