Motus Mentis

Why is it that modern “progressive” Leftists are always so angry?

Here’s one possibility: because the ideological commitments of the side they’ve chosen bind them to make, and to defend, assertions about the world that are self-evidently false. For example:

— That men can become women, and women men;

— That there is no such thing as intelligence, or innate ability;

— That there are no statistical differences in the distribution of various qualities and characteristics among long-separated human populations;

— That all aggregate differences in life outcomes among these populations can only be due to oppression and racism;

— That anyone properly nurtured can become a Beethoven or an Einstein;

— That Democracy is an end in itself;

— That with the right application of political power and “education” we can create an earthly Utopia in which everyone lives easily and prosperously at nobody’s expense;

— That the Earth naturally has a stable, ideal climate, any deviation from which is due to, and remediable by, human activity;

— That men are naturally good, and so we should entrust our government with an absolute monopoly on the use of physical force;

— That unborn children are inanimate matter wholly undeserving of moral consideration;

–That we possess wisdom and moral insights that all who came before us simply failed to perceive or to grasp, and so we have nothing to learn from tradition, religion, and history;

— That hierarchy in all its natural forms is an evil thing to be smashed to rubble;

— That nations have no need of borders;

— That we should elevate the stupid, perverted, ugly and grotesque above the wise, normal, and beautiful in the interest of fairness and equity;

— That private property is theft;

…and so on (and on).

Clearly, all of these things are false. One might wish that they were true, but can anyone really believe them? I think not, and I think that the (socially enforced) need to pretend that one does — not just to others, but to oneself — must have a profoundly corrosive and toxic effect.

If that weren’t enough, here’s something else. In his 1894 book The Ancient City, Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges wrote:

The poor man had equality of rights; but assuredly his daily sufferings led him to think equality of fortunes far preferable. Nor was he long in perceiving that the equality which he had might serve him to acquire that which he had not and that, master of the votes, he might become master of the wealth of his city. He began by undertaking to live upon his right of voting. He asked to be paid for attending the assembly, or for deciding causes in the courts. If the city was not rich enough to afford such an expense, the poor man had other resources. He sold his vote and, as the occasions for voting were frequent, he could live. At Rome this traffic was regular and was carried on in broad day; at Athens it was better concealed. At Rome, where the poor man did not act as a judge, he sold himself as a witness; at Athens, as a judge.

Here we see a deep binary division: between those whose only means of support is to attach themselves like lampreys to a ruling elite (and who will be gathered by that elite to consolidate its power and status), and those free men whose dignity and self-esteem are built on reliance upon their own talents, efforts, and virtues.

How, then, could all of this — the persistent cognitive dissonance of maintaining beliefs blatantly at odds with truth, and the humiliating parasitic relationships that characterize the Bioleninism of the institutional Left — not make a person sick and angry inside? We shouldn’t be surprised at all.