Slavery in the West


Thursday 45°33°F

The hypocrisy of the Progressive platform reveals that the cost of participation is rationality. Modern Progressives declare that transparency of government, freedom of opinion, and universal acceptance of cultural differences are the benchmarks of a liberated society. In reality, the left acts to preserve these pillars only in their rhetoric and are in fact, actively contributing to the degeneracy of these freedoms.

The largest thorn in the side of the Clinton campaign during this election cycle was the endless stream of email leaks that shined a consistent light on abhorrent corruption within the Clinton campaign and the DNC as a whole. As a reaction to the leaks, Progressives desperately sought punishment for the perpetrators. The media rushed to assign unfounded blame to Russia and to condemn Wikileaks and its figurehead, Julian Assange. CNN even went so far as to falsely claim that reading the leaks was illegal.

Why does a political platform that so highly values transparency attack those who foster it? Why does the establishment media try to prevent those whom they are trying to inform from seeking information for themselves and why do they label outright lies as objective news? Is this political transparency?

Progressives paint a portrait of their ideal society- a Mecca of equality; but despite their claim to freedom of opinion, within the city walls, disagreement is not welcome. In fact, Progressives actively work to silence dissent rather than run the risk of confronting their own prejudice. To that point, look at Milo Yiannopoulos and Peter Thiel. These are gay men who (as the left would declare) have braved the trials of oppression and systematic homophobia and emerged victorious–Yiannopoulos, a journalist and author who draws headlines larger than his crowds and Thiel, an icon of Silicon Valley. Yet their emphatic support of Donald Trump and refusal to endorse Progressive dogma subjects them to unprecedented levels of hatred, ostracism, and vilification. Thiel, himself, issued a statement earlier this year illustrating this principle. 

“The Advocate, a magazine that once raised me as a gay innovator, even published an article saying as of now I am, and I quote, ‘not a gay man’ because I don’t agree with their politics,” he announced. “The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear. If you don’t conform, then you don’t count as diverse. No matter what your personal background.”

As punishment for treasonous disagreement, Progressives have deemed Yiannopoulos and Thiel undeserving of their claim to equality.

In that vein, look at Kanye West and Caitlyn Jenner, both of whom were once universally hailed for overcoming their particular brand of systematic oppression. They were viciously turned on following the revelation of their refusal to tow the progressive line. 

Further, Robert Menard, the mayor of the French town of Beziers, recently pointed to his city centers, where classes of schoolchildren are now more than 90% Muslim; he is now set to stand trial on charges of inciting hatred or discrimination for suggesting that this “cultural replacement” presented a danger to the preservation of French identity.

Is this equality? Is this discourse?

While the Progressive Left proclaims its capacity for cultural and racial acceptance, it seems that this only applies to the groups that are deemed acceptable. Over the holidays, a professor at Drexel University tweeted that his Christmas wish was “White genocide” and has subsequently defended his remarks and refused to redact the statement. 

Even amidst backlash, the professor has retained his position with the university. 

Progressives champion gay rights and with the same breath condemn the West for Islamophobia. As if by some twisted Newtonian equilibrium, “Gays for Islam” groups are emerging in the Unites States in record numbers, proportional to the rate at which homosexuals are executed in Islamic nations. A rational mind does not naturally gravitate to ideological masochism; so what, if not slavery, could compel a human being to champion acceptance of an ideology sentencing your execution? Is it not slavery to worship those whom wish you to die?

The Progressive Left supports freedom to choose anything but disagreement. They tout gleefully that all males are sexist, all whites are supremacists, all men of ability are ableist, but contend that #notallmuslims who shout “Allahu Akbar” are terrorists and #notallillegals commit crimes. Progressives sprint to identify whatever they can as racism, misogyny, bigotry, and the entire political hypochondriac’s spectrum of phobias, but they simultaneously shed whatever self-identification possible; the fabrication of 37 genders, the needlessly complex spectrum of sexual attraction, the continuous androgenization of both men and women are all symptoms of a fundamental need to avoid identity. It is in this way that the Progressive proponents of identity politics actually seek dis-identification. They cry that, not the family, but the individual is the molecule of society and yet simultaneously wail that selfish interests need to be abandoned–the needs of the molecular self shed for the good of society.

I pose that if individualism is the price to be paid for the collective, what exactly is collected?

Slavery is alive and well in the West. The involuntary subjugation to others has been transmuted from the physical realm into the intellectual; the subjection to burdensome labor is no longer practiced in fields, but in the mind; the chains of Progressive Slavery only see the light of day during these moments of inconsistency where, confronted with the possibility of surrendering victimhood, progressives are forced to endure the labor of dissonance that no free mind would tolerate. They have surrendered their grasp on reality and have been enslaved by a strictly undefined collective. If those who have paid the price of individualism have surrendered to this abstract collective good, whoever writes the definition holds the whip.