Humanist Religion (3): Liberal Control Freaks

If I have learned anything at all from intensively studying current events and history, it’s this: everything said or done or advocated by liberals (aka “progressives”) has as its one and only aim the control of other people. This is what makes them tick. In fact, it is the only thing that makes them tick.

Caveat: Not all secular humanists are liberals. Some are strict libertarians who really don’t care what anybody else does, just that they be left alone to do it. There are atheists who are politically conservative, even socially conservative–a position fraught with logical pitfalls, but they are welcome to it.

Most of the Humanist Manifesto II crowd, though, are dyed-in-the-wool liberals… and they want to control your behavior and everybody else’s. Some are sincerely deluded that they know what’s best for others and why do the rest of us not have the good sense to obey them? (“Sincerely deluded” is actually a tautology: I don’t think you can be insincerely deluded.) That would be your old-fashioned Hubert Humphrey liberal–a nice man, an honest man, with a lot of ideas as wacky as they come.

But mostly, when you examine the policies that liberals insist we follow, you discover that if we did follow them, liberals would gain fantastic wealth and more and more power over others. This is blatantly easy to see in the case of Global Warming. It’s what has driven public education theory for over 100 years. It is what makes the political world go round.

There are few liberals who are as flagrantly obvious as, say, Hillary Clinton, about their hunger for power as an end in itself, not to mention her insatiable piling-up of personal wealth. Most of them do a far better job of hanging the fig leaves. But they are only fig leaves.

Because they have such a monomaniacal need to control others, liberals always try to wipe out even the most trifling and ineffective opposition. Case in point: New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, in all other respects a Party apparatchik in good standing, has been socked with a great big indictment for corruption on charges that the Party just laughed off a year ago. But Menendez opposed Dear Leader’s policy of going soft on Castro’s Cuba; so, for this single trespass, they mean to destroy him. The fact that Menendez’s constituency includes many anti-Castro Cuban voters, whom he must represent or else find another line of work, does not register with the Kremlin on the Potomac. They could have very easily ignored it: “Oh, that’s just Bob Menendez, he has to do that…” But no–off with his head.

If you forget everything else, remember that liberals–who probably account for some 90% of the secular humanists–have an unquenchable desire to control your behavior. Under the banner of “Choice,” they take away your choices. Under the  banner of “Diversity,” they enforce uniformity of thought.

This is what motivates America’s ruling caste at every level, from the lowliest classroom teacher to the pharaoh in the White House. Understand this lust for control, and you will understand everything they say and do.

2 comments on “Humanist Religion (3): Liberal Control Freaks

  1. In 1922 G.K. Chesterton wrote of this same tyrannical progressive Statist phenomenon in one of his books…

    “In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad. All that official discipline, about which the Socialists themselves were in doubt or at least on the defensive, was taken over bodily by the Capitalists.

    They have now added all the bureaucratic tyrannies of a Socialist state to the old plutocratic tyrannies of a Capitalist State. For the vital point is that it did not in the smallest degree diminish the inequalities of a Capitalist State. It simply destroyed such individual liberties as remained among its victims.

    It did not enable any man to build a better house; it only limited the houses he might live in—or how he might manage to live there; forbidding him to keep pigs or poultry or to sell beer or cider.

    It did not even add anything to a man’s wages; it only took away something from a man’s wages and locked it up, whether he liked it or not, in a sort of money-box which was regarded as a medicine-chest.

    It does not send food into the house to feed the children; it only sends an inspector into the house to punish the parents for having no food to feed them. It does not see that they have got a fire; it only punishes them for not having a fireguard. It does not even occur to it to provide the fireguard.”

    1. All of the “isms” devised by fallen man are bad enough; but to take away the good parts of capitalism and replace them with the bad parts of socialism is diabolical.

Leave a Reply