Do they really hate ordinary people that much?
Yes, they do. For liberals, the distinction between the “dumb masses” and their enlightened selves renders life meaningful. Disdain for ordinary folks is not just an ancillary trait of liberalism. It is fundamental to its nature.
At its heart, liberalism is a gnostic religion, and the essence of that religion is the believer’s faith that he possesses the means of changing the world for the better. The belief that the world must be changed requires there to be a mass of individuals whose lives are in need of change. Following this logic, it is the liberal, not those deplorables in need of change, who knows what must be changed. For liberals, there must be a mass of people in need of this knowledge for life to make sense.
Above all, liberalism is a hubristic faith. Its followers share the fatal flaw of pride in their own intellectual capacity. This is why liberalism appeals so strongly to those in the knowledge trades: teachers, journalists, writers, psychologists, and social workers. The sense of “knowing more than others” is its strongest attraction – particularly to the young, who otherwise know so little. Liberalism confers, or seems to confer, almost immediate power and authority to those who embrace it.
That’s just the opener. He goes on from there and nails it all down clean and tight, tying some at-first-blush disparate threads together into a seamless whole. This bit especially resonated with me:
At its core, liberalism can be defined in gnostic terms as the human mind’s idolizing of itself. In this sense, Obama’s famous aphorism is spot on. The liberal mind really is what the liberal mind has been waiting for.
What it seeks is not, however, goodness, or security, or higher living standards, or even better health care. What it seeks is the celebration of its own brilliance. “Smug” is a small word that perfectly captures the nature of the progressive mind.
To succeed, liberalism must acquire and retain clients in need of change. It is not in the interest of the liberal to solve problems. What the liberal needs is continually to discover new problems and hold them up as in need of solution.
Thereby not just substantiating their pretension to innate superiority, but confirming them as indispensable. Their core insecurity, juvenile and facile as it is, demands constant affirmation. Their egos, wildly inflated as they are, shatter as easily as the thinnest glass at the slightest touch of the hammer. Which, tragically for them, is exactly what reality is constantly subjecting them to. Which in turn is why they’re such miserable people, truly happy only when inflicting misery on others.
This analysis also covers why it is that they lash out so viciously, out of all proportion to the perceived provocation, whenever they’re thwarted in their designs or even so much as contradicted verbally. If you don’t believe me, try arguing—reasonably, calmly, respectfully—with a lib, on any issue at all, preferably a somewhat trivial one. The vehemence of the reaction you get will astound you. Persist, and the “discussion” will degenerate into an arm-waving, bug-eyed shouting match with a quickness no matter how hard you may work to keep things civil. Debate them into a corner from which there is no escape and the very least you can expect in response is a simmering, pouty, butthurt sulk.
As I’ve mentioned many times, being a professional musician all these years inevitably means I have many liberal friends out there in meatspace. There are certain things I just don’t talk about with most of ’em, unless I’m intentionally trying to tweak their noses a little. Even then, I’m careful to let things go only so far before I relent. Pressing it ain’t worth the bother; I already know they aren’t persuadable, and I don’t wish to sacrifice friendships I do actually value over mere politics. As the old joke goes: it wastes my time, and annoys the pig. Out of the whole crowd, I can think of exactly three (3) with which I can have serious discussions without things degenerating into a near-brawl.
Freud had ’em sussed out long ago, as it happens. And they’ve hated him ever since for it, too.
Update! Oh, THIS oughta piss ’em off for sure.
I normally shy away from this kind of activism, but at some point conservatives need to begin pushing back. To that end, here’s what I encourage:
An NRA member needs to find the most progressive bakery he can, and then request an AR-15-shaped cake for a Second Amendment celebration. Walk into the store wearing an NRA shirt and hat. Openly carry a gun if you’re legally allowed. Ask for the top of the cake to be decorated with words like “In celebration of the NRA.”
When the mortified SJW baker refuses, sue her.
In doing so, you may run up against the argument that being a gun owner isn’t an identity. Hogwash! If you feel like being a gun owner and an NRA member is central to your identity, no one has the right to deny you that identity.
Instead of trying to fight progressives’ absurdities with logic and common sense, maybe it’s time to start turning the absurdity back onto progressives.
I’ve long advocated turning Alinsky back on ’em, Rule 4 in particular: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Damned skippy. In so doing, one would also be in compliance with Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” If such an unthinkable atrocity didn’t speedily reduce Progtards to spluttering, hysterical incoherence once word of it got around, I don’t know what would. There’d probably be nationwide urban rioting over it, I’d bet. Such side-splitting developments would actually make tuning in to the MSM nightly news shows worthwhile.