What makes a devoutly religious man different than a fanatic? Both seem to have absolute faith in an ideology. Both are usually evangelical and both never seem to question the prevailing narratives of their religion.
But the fanatic is susceptible to fear -- fear that his ideology may be wrong. This is the different than the devout man, who truly believes in his religion and therefore is not threatened by outside opinions. However, for the fanatic, he secretly doubts. And the stronger the fanatic's belief in the ideology, the more he will fight against conflicting thought; not because it will destroy his ideology such that the ideology itself will cease to exist, but because these counter-ideas will destroy his belief in his ideology. The fear sets in when he realizes that by aligning himself with a false ideology, there is something wrong with his thinking and therefore wrong with him.
Now we've arrived at cognitive dissonance. Many psychologists believe it to be the most powerful force in the mind. Humans interpret reality, their ideas, and their actions with the intent of avoiding cognitive dissonance. The fanatic does this more than anyone.
Right now, we watch as our public universities ignore and remove any thought that does not align with today's identity politics or kowtow to the emotions of the audience. Writing for The Weekly Standard, Mark Hemingway recounts how, in anticipation for Benjamin Netanyahu's visit, employees at one of the more prestigious liberal think tanks requested a "safe space" in which they could be excused from hearing anything he had to saw.
As Hemingway writes:
"But the expectation that merely being in the same building as a Democratically elected head of an important state is a threat to employees' personal well-being, exacerbates their 'individual struggles,' and is otherwise oppressing people the world over is just cringeworthy."
Almost every liberal I know would stand opposed to these actions and declare their support for alternative thinking and ideas of all types. What they do not understand is that the war against ideas began in their camp and what we now are seeing is the inevitable byproduct. When the generation you raised in an environment of godlessness, subjective morality, and emotion-based logic comes of age, you will find they have grown quite militant in defense of their opinions, being all they know. At this stage, for them to incorporate alternate ideas into their thinking will force them to question not only their own opinions, but their very selves. You've raise a generation of fanatics.
There was a time when the Left fought in the center of the public square for their ideas. For the coming generation this does not seem to be an option and it is rather disconcerting. The strategy is now to cast off and ignore anything that may cause doubt. They desire a "safe space" but what they really desire is a "space safe from the cognitive dissonance which arises when supporting an ideology without basis in evidence, honesty, or righteousness."
Trouble is, everything the Left fights for is based on the underlying assumptions that 1) their cause is righteous, 2) their opinions have already been proven correct, and 3) all reasonable and good people agree with them (it is quite troubling for a Leftist when he hears dissenting opinions coming from a friend or respected mentor). Remember, assumptions are used to establish certain conditions in a logical argument -- conditions that are not verified or proven to be true, but taken as given. This is the great sin of the Leftist thought process. And it has become so pervasive that many of the destructive liberal narratives have become part of our society's "prevailing wisdom" such that even many conservatives are duped.
I'm starting to think the Neoreactionaries had it right when they coined the term "Cathedral."
For now, though, let's just sit back and enjoy watching the Left consume itself, as these monsters they've raised begin to burn down liberals' precious universities.
No comments:
Post a Comment