Tuesday, October 06, 2015

The Tyranny of Idealism

Of all the Alinsky rules, the most relevant one is, "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." But he simply codified and made pragmatic the most destructive of the left's rules which is, "Make the enemy live up to his ideals." Even if those ideals are often the invention of the left.

Ideals are by definition impossible to live up to. Human societies aren't ideal, they're real. Ideals are absolutes and an unfliching attempt to live up to them destroys individuals and societies. More subtly, the failure to live up to them justifies hatred and self-hatred toward nations and peoples.

People naturally want to think the best of their creeds and cultures, their societies and their states. This is both the best weapon and the best breeding ground of the left. There is nothing that creates leftists and draws them like the accusation that a nation is failing to live up to its ideals.

Absolutes are a goad, but they are not an answer. A nation is not an ideal. It is a structure that allows people to live. A nation pursuing an ideal is a prison. It is the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. It is North Korea. Or it's Europe swamping its cities with Muslims or Israel pursuing a "purity of arms" that its enemies do not abide by. The pursuit of such ideals is a death wish. It's a totalitarian suicide.

Religions embody ideals. Nations do not. A religion is built around a deity that can forgive its worshipers for their flaws. The wheel of sin turns toward redemption. Failure in religion is itself a learning experience that allows for self-improvement. Unless warped, it does not lead to a state of self-hatred, self-destruction and death.

But the state has no God. It is a bureaucratic idol composed of activist politicians and their clerks. It cannot redeem itself. Only damn itself. When it pursues an ideal, it borrows the narrative of religion without any divine understanding. Fanatics stand at the helm who are corrupt and goaded to extremes by their own failures, made incapable of forgiveness by their own human weaknesses.

The ideal state is a cult. At its head is the cult of personality. It ends with Jim Jones dispensing the Kool Aid. Or Rabin shaking Arafat's hand. Or Merkel opening the borders. Or Obama rattling through another teleprompter speech filled with borrowed inspirations and empty hopes.

The ideal state can only find its redemption in death. The death of states is the grand gesture that inspires leftists to believe that "Imagine" is the anthem of the future. What the state cannot do, the planetary collective will somehow accomplish. And yet the ideal state was the collective that was meant to accomplish what individuals could not do.

A state in pursuit of an ideal must always fail and in its failure discredit itself. The process of failure teaches self-hatred.

Think about how each time that America or Israel struggles to conduct a pure war that kills the fewest enemies possible, it only intensifies the wave of hatred and self-hatred indoctrinated by the left at each failure. It is the pursuit of an impossible ideal that feeds the hatred. The closer we come to an impossible notion of a pure war, the more our failures are used to spread shame and disgust.

In the tyranny of idealism, superior morality is not rewarded, it is punished.

Those closest to the ideal feel the failures most keenly. Those furthest from it are completely immune to them. A nation that genuinely values ideals can be taunted for failing to live up to them. It is the nation's own weakness for exceptionalism that makes it vulnerable. Once the exceptionalism is made conditional on impossible ideals, then it can be goaded to destroy itself by trying to live up to them.

There is nothing that saps morale and clouds decision making like the failure to live up to one's ideals. Once ideals define perspective, then the nation begins the race to the abyss of those ideals.

Functional nations pursue practical goals that are in the interest of their peoples. Ideal states are gulags, concentration camps, where human beings are tools for achieving ideals. A functional nation can be free, but an ideal state must be totalitarian no matter how often it prates about freedom. A nation can only be free when it accepts human flaws and frailties. An ideal state loves freedom, but hates free people. It cannot accept individualism or the wisdom of crowds. It bends them to its ideal.

The only way to escape the tyranny of idealism is for a nation to accept its flaws.

Once a people become susceptible to the tyranny of idealism, they begin to accept that their lives are conditional on the fulfillment of a set of ideals. And that they can therefore be sacrificed to them.

It follows them that America and Israel must accept the death of its people at the hands of terrorists rather than violate some impossible ideal about civilian casualties when fighting terrorists. Scale that moral calculus up to the nuclear and this ideal mandates that nations must die rather than fight back.

Likewise, Europe's refugee idealism demands that it accept hordes of invaders even at the cost of its existence, because its existence is conditional on ideals rather than realities. Survival by violating ideals becomes a fate worse than death. Religious martyrdom becomes a secular national suicide.

In this environment, the left thrives. Every failure of ideals becomes a cause for self-hatred. The peoples of the free world are taught that they violate their own values by living. Even their passive existence is a carbon crime, a volitional act of white privilege, that can never be wiped clean. Every attempt at self-defense, every attempt at existence, deepens their crime. The only escape is death.

Leftist politics pretends to offer ideals it is for, but it most acutely campaigns not for, but against. The leftist activist knows the society that he hates better than the one he loves, he has a much clearer understanding of the world that he wants to destroy than the world he wishes to create.

His politics are not creative, they are destructive. He has been nurtured on the foul milk of self-hatred. It has taught him to love himself by hating others. His arrogance is a contempt for an ordinary mass of people he fancies himself superior to because he wishes to destroy their way of life and remake it along some impossible ideal. The remaking cannot be done, but the destruction is always feasible. The leftist is always destroying someone else to atone for his own failure of ideals.

This is the way of the left. Its leaders and societies are predatory failures, consuming and destroying the life force of their peoples, and then expanding to destroy their neighbors and the world. The collective buck is always passed to some new group of victims and suckers. It will be their job to make the failed ideals of the past viable through sacrifices, self-hatred and self-destruction.

What the leftist does best is teach self-hatred. It is the main course in our educational system today. Its students are taught to despise their family, their culture, their religion, their way of life and their nation for failing to live up to the tainted ideals of the left. And to gain their self-worth through a rejection of these things and the embrace of their destruction. And so the leftist is born.

A set of ideals whose fulfillment requires our destruction reveals either our falseness or their falseness. The answer distinguishes the fanatic from the philosopher. Only the fanatic demands that people pursue ideals which will destroy them, whose terms make their existence impossible.

Our leftist philosopher-kings are not philosophers, they are feudal fanatics who bind peoples to ideals that destroy them because it feeds their twisted madness and their sense of superiority. They are not interested in the terms on which people can actually exist. They are not interested in people at all except as subjects for their gleeful malice and as puppets for their political psychodramas.

The absolute is never the answer except to the tyrant. And only a madman filled with hatred demands that a nation choose between self-hatred and self-destruction.

Human existence is the only possible resistance to the inhuman demands of the ideal state. This is the restating of the Declaration of Independence that governments exist for the life, liberty and happiness of human beings, not for the fulfillment of ideals which would destroy them.

Governments are not meant for angels, but for men. A state exists to enable, first the existence, second the freedom, and third the happiness of human beings, in exactly that order of importance.

A state whose policies destroy human existence has nullified itself. A state may only nullify their freedom if the very question of their existence is in question. And it may only nullify their happiness for their freedom. These are human terms. No other terms are either wanted or acceptable.

Governments are not religions and no political movement can place its pet philosopher in place of God. No man can demand more of other men. Only God can demand the impossible because He can also grant the impossible. No political system can forgive. It can only amass more guilt and sin, more hatred and self-hatred, more madness and destruction. Human beings cannot exceed themselves.

A healthy idealism aspires to a more human state of living. It does not demand absolutes. An idealism that demands absolutes is a trap. It is easy to tell the difference between the two.

Human ideals feel better about themselves as they improve. Inhuman ones feel worse because the ideal is never meant to be reached. An irreligious absolute offers no redemption. Instead the failure to do the impossible becomes the means of breaking people of their human qualities and making them into monsters.

We can only achieve human terms of existence for nations and peoples by accepting our flaws. Perfection is as impossible for a people as it is for a person. And within our flaws, we create an existence that is not based on the collective impossibilities of an ideal, but on the realizable goodness of our human flaws. Instead of seeking to create a perfect state, we individually become better people. Instead of the tyranny of idealism creating monsters, we give ourselves the freedom to be human beings.

Instead of building suicidal ideal states, we create societies in which we have the freedom to be good while refusing to lapse into a self-hatred borne of frustrated idealism which prevents us from seeing the goodness of our fellow men and the evil of our enemies.


epoche said...

Our leftist philosopher-kings are not philosophers, they are feudal fanatics who bind peoples to ideals that destroy them because it feeds their twisted madness and their sense of superiority. They are not interested in the terms on which people can actually exist. They are not interested in people at all except as subjects for their gleeful malice and as puppets for their political psychodramas.
This is really great writing Sultan. The line that the left is not really interested in creating the conditions under which real people can exist and thrive is very important. Their "ideal" is much more important. They are interested in putting white males and jews in their place. They are interested in class warfare, sexual anarchism, nihilism, and avenging historical grievances even against the wrong people. Even among the well meaning leftist they never take the idea that what counts is results not intentions. Accordingly they never need apologize for their mistakes. They are radicals for social change because they are discontented but have not thought through the consequences of their reforms. The elite white liberals baby boomers in particular seem to want to take down several generations with them because they have nothing sacred except for their reforms. A large number of them have no experience with real poverty, social conflict, war, incarceration, or many of the horrible things that real human beings face because they live in a bubble. A lot of them still think that it is 1950. Who cares if people cant afford to have the family size they want because of intergenerational debt overhang if Elizabeth Warren can attack the GOP over abortion? Why bother worrying about Jesse Jackson threatening the financial health and long term outlook of the Tech Industry if the donations keep rolling in? Why worry about women being raped in Europe because of unchecked immigration? Its more important to attack Jews, White Males and Christians and we will overlook arson, looting and national borders to get there.

cjk said...

A masterpiece !!!! You are an extremely wise man Mr. Greenfield. I know exactly what you're saying, but you put it to some fine wording.

Anonymous said...

I hope that you'll publish a book with all of your essays. Brilliant writing and logic like no other.

Will you entertain a speaking engagement?

When people understand the true nature of the battle we are in and who is leads each side, the closer one will learn who they are and what's at stake.

Anonymous said...

Cheer up Daniel. I'm sure we can turn that frown upside down.

mindRider said...

If only we could get Obama to autocue-speech this article of yours to the Nation.........

112 said...

It's redundant to say this is incredible writing, because I could make that understatement on every one of your posts, but if you put any one of your articles on the site of more than half the conservative writers out there, it would be the best one, so I'll say it anyways.

This is a brilliant explanation why you see people siding with the Arabs in Facebook conversations. You have big tough right wingers talking about how much Israel lives up to the ideology of being loving to Arabs by warning them before bomb strikes and giving them free food, water and electricity, along with rights and knesset representation, and it's never enough for the left, you can never be the perfect embodiment of the tolerant, loving people they imagine, and even when the person can be convinced that Israel is doing everything it possibly can for the Arabs, they still side with them, because if you win that argument, you tell them it's good to give worship and offerings to the Arabs, and if you loose, you're still saying that, you're just not a good enough worshiper, and should be punished, and try harder.

Making your opponent live up to the ideology you force on them is heads I win tails you loose.

Anonymous said...

Excellent. The insight is breathtaking. What would we do without you?

God be with you.


Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

112, no you can't. It's a perverse dead end.

The argument is, "Look how much I'm killing myself" vs. "You're hardly breaking a sweat."

This is the sort of thing you have in abusive relationship where the abused partner is goaded to new depths of masochism, to show his devotion to the thing that is destroying him. That's what Israeli "Hasbara" has come down to.

Look how much we bend over backward for the people killing us. Why don't you see how much we do?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Reminds me of the teenage girls at a protest outside the Turkish embassy after the Mavi attack who insisted on singing Shalom, Salaam

That's the state of insanity in the pro-Israel camp in a nutshell

RAM said...

When have the leftist activists and officials ever submitted themselves to the indignities and worse that they impose on others?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Those who hand out the assignments are excused from doing the job.

Jill said...

Great piece.
Interesting coincidence, I had a short talk with someone about principles wherein I made a similar point about countries and principles needing to work for people, other wise there is no point to them.

Great minds!! ;)

Anonymous said...

I'm reading a biography of Andrew Jackson. Now I see why the left wants to take him off our currency. He beat the British, the American Indians and the Spanish. and never apologized. He was a great man and a flawed man. He had slaves and didn't always treat them well. Thus, his memory must be destroyed by the left.

- HaLevi

Brooks Imperial said...

The whole design of American government the Founders conceived was premised on human fallibility.

So they must be destroyed.

Stacey Gordon said...

Do you drink beer? I owe you a few. Brilliant! If you ever find yourself in the south....

Anonymous said...

First class .An inspiration to many of us struggling to turn around the postion in our lands. Thanks .
Dave S

AesopFan said...

By pure coincidence, I watched a clip on PowerLine that exactly corroborates your viewpoint.

Steven Hayward says:
Later this week I’m away to Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, for a conference Friday afternoon with—and about the works of—philosopher Roger Scruton. ...
The program for the conference says boldly that “Roger Scruton is the leading conservative philosopher in the world,” and I think I have to agree,

Anonymous said...

Well said. The Left is Iago, always finding fault imaginary or trifling when there is none, yet acting like a friend lookng out for your best self-interests. It goads others to take action to take the so-called high road, it will not do itself. Like Iago, the Left is jealous of those who are successful as a result of their own efforts and talents. They seek to destroy anyone above their own station--Which makes most of the world fair game--in the name of social equity. And like Iago, they will make good people ashamed of themselves, and lure them to destroy that which they love in pursuit of single-minded ideals they planted in their victims heads.

Thinking about it some more, Othello's tragedy mirrors how the Left have egged on the black community with sweet promises and lies to bring them further down as "victims" who must seek redress by attacking "racism" as the reason of thier plight.

Beth said...


fsy said...

The real question is "Why are there so many people whose main desire in life is to control others?" Once these control-freaks exist, they will find ways to make the normal people feel endlessly guilty until they submit to them. How can we get this trait out of the human genome?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

You can't get bad traits out of human nature. You can just be aware of them and push back against any attempt to pass off control freakery as noble activism.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant and extraordinary. But from whence cometh the opposition to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness? What drives the evil? (should conservatives establish 'Envy crimes' to counter 'Hate crimes'?) Is the motivation of the left merely destruction? - but what of precisely? The tools and techniques are brilliantly displayed, but......why? My answers devolve to the spiritual - what am I missing?

Thank you so much.


Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

To some extent, the opposition is idealism. If you believe that people should be forced to live in an ideal way that your ideology says is perfect, there's no room left for life, liberty or happiness.

The question is what sort of mindset drives people to such goals. And that's a more complicated question.

The MUSEman said...

A truly excellent post worthy of a bookmark (and, to have my Liberal friends read)!

While mankind should always *strive* to create a greater good, "Utopian" societies are called that for a reason. I only wonder how your editorial might be re-worded from the point of view of a devoted Conservative Politician, Religious Patriarch, or Military General: Liberal idealism is easy to spot, as they remind us constantly through the Press, Hollywood, Politicians, Unions, "Grassroots efforts", etc., but idealists come in many stripes and idealism forced upon others is almost always not a good thing.

Thanks for reading!

Anonymous said...

The leftish mindset always remembers me of Aesop's cicada. The poets don´t fear the winter. Let´s dream and endless summer with illegal aliens included. We can always ask some stupid ant in uniform, if needed, they are used to sacrifice themselves anyways.

fsy said...

You can't get bad traits out of human nature. You can just be aware of them and push back against any attempt to pass off control freakery as noble activism.

I was being rhetorical; what I meant was really something like you are saying, to make these traits socially unacceptable. My main point was that the central problem is not the specific strategy the power-hungry class is using right now, but their very existence.

BostonBlackJack said...

Soon they will try to erase Thomas Jefferson in the same way.

Post a Comment