July 6, 2014
Progressives At War with Reality
In his essay The Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man,
Frederick Engels wrote, “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves
overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such
victory nature takes its revenge on us.” Engels may have been a dunce on
economics and class sociology, but his warning was prescient to
progressivism’s attempt to subvert the shackles of reality.
Listening
to today’s progressives, you get the impression that we are on the
inexorable path to utopia. People are more tolerant and accepting than
ever before. Abortion and birth control are readily available. Sex
selection of the unborn is on the rise. Marriage has ceased
being a sacred bond and is becoming a catch-all term for any contract
agreed to by one or more persons. As government takes over more swaths
of the economy, promises of material abundance keep escaping the mouths
of politicians.
The
implicit goal in all of this progress is total domination over nature
by man. Poverty, sickness, intolerance, ugliness -- the left wants
nothing to be left to chance or God’s hands. The power to mold the
future so that it fits one grand vision is the Holy Grail of
progressivism.
A slew of recent news stories elucidate this sweeping objective. In Slate, transgender activist Christin Scarlett Milloy condemns the practice of assigning gender at birth. She -- her preferred pronoun, though this photo
makes me question its accuracy -- writes that upon birth, a child’s
“potential is limitless.” The second that gender is determined, the
newborn’s “life is instantly and brutally reduced... down to one
concrete set of expectations and stereotypes.” Essentially, the baby’s
future is split, so that its career as a blue collar construction worker
or ballet dancer is now predetermined.
Not
giving the infant or the parents consent to “choose” gender is now seen
as a great injustice. It may sound strange but it shouldn’t. In the
great age of choice, why shouldn’t we subvert the tradition of gender
assignments? Are we not free unless we can ignore a doctor’s “cursory
assessment” of what’s between a newborn’s legs?
If
nature is the enemy, then biological reality must be defeated. Hence
the move to transcend gender, and its social expectations, through
medical operations. But even the construction of artificial genitals
doesn’t seem to be enough to soothe the unrest of those uncomfortable
with binary gender roles. Milloy notes that transgendered individuals
have a higher rate of suicide and
depression than cisgender folks. Why is this? Milloy attributes it to
bullying and being assigned the wrong gender at birth. The idea of
revenge for believing man can overthrow nature is not given a hint of
consideration.
Striving
to master sex and gender is not the only mission of progressives. Now,
there are attempts being made to counteract life’s one guarantee: death.
A recent front page story in the New York Times detailed
how a funeral home in New Orleans specializes in posing the corpse of
the recently deceased performing their favorite activity. One deceased
woman was photographed while propped up at a table “amid miniature New
Orleans Saints helmets, with a can of Busch beer at one hand and a
menthol cigarette between her fingers” as was her wont in life. The
practice, which originated in Puerto Rico, is still relatively rare. In
San Juan, viewings in recent years have included a “paramedic displayed
behind the wheel of his ambulance” and “a man dressed for his wake like
Che Guevara, cigar in hand and seated Indian style.” Some people are
beginning to request this type of funeral upon their death. Elsie
Rodríguez, vice president of the Marín Funeral Home in Puerto Rico,
rationalizes the custom because it eases the burden felt by the
deceased’s family. He told the Times, “the family literally suffers less, because they see their loved one in a way that would have made them happy.”
In
the scheme of things, does posing the dead engaged in a favored
activity really corrupt the soul? Perhaps not, but it’s indicative of a
fanciful longing to not leave things as they are. This year, a man in
Ohio received his wish that upon his death, his body was to be placed on
his Harley-Davidson motorcycle and towed to the cemetery in a custom
plexiglass coffin. Did parading his lifeless body around bring some
happiness to his spiritual being? We’ll never know the answer. But does
clinging to the last vestiges of earthly existence undermine a person’s
contribution to the living world? I believe the answer is “yes,” despite
what reprieve it may bring for family members in anguish. As Wesley Smith of
the Discovery Institute writes, conducting “living” funerals is just
another contemporary disposition that attempts “to deflect the ultimate
reality of human mortality.”
Gender-bending
and death denial aren’t consequences of a flawed philosophy on life,
but merely symptoms. If you believe mankind can conquer the mountains,
squash all injustice, and create a society of pure happiness, then it
makes sense to push the limits of nature and see if God will truly stand
down to His own creation. Of course, in the fight between God and man,
man must always lose, or else he wouldn’t be man to begin with. That’s
why progressivism’s march to conquer nature nearly always ends in
despair.
Pushing
too hard against reality is liable to create unintended ramifications
that distort and disorder our own well-being and sense of purposeful
design. In short, it conflates what we know to be true with what’s
false. Pretending the dead are still alive doesn’t bring proper closure.
It only delays the inevitable reckoning. Just the same, arbitrarily
choosing one’s gender based on personal inclinations doesn’t appear to
boost self-esteem. The epidemic of suicide attempts among transgendered
individuals says there is something highly disrupting about challenging
one of nature’s most embedded realities.
Without
a recognition and acceptance of natural order, things become
disorienting to the point of meaningless. If good and evil are no
different, if life and death hold no meaningful difference, if girl and
boy are simply words with no distinction, then what foundation do we
have to plant the flag of reality? It is as Milan Kundera wrote:
called this feeling of weightlessness in a world crying out to be
grounded “the unbearable lightness of being.” When it attaches itself to
a person, our moral compass goes haywire. Life begins to lose all
direction. The only way to recalibrate ourselves is to rediscover our
role in the universe.
The
difference between the man who sees reality as living truth and the man
who must control all external factors is surrender and pride. Those who
surrender accept the path given, and find joy along the way. Those who
have the overwhelming need for control -- and are prideful enough to
believe they can succeed -- end up destroying what nature provides. They
pull reality’s various poles together, flattening the landscape until
they are left with nothing.
In Canto III of Paradiso,
Dante summed up the ordered liberty position perfectly: “For in His
will is our peace.” Those who try to conquer the laws of nature will
never find peace because they are ultimately trying to accomplish the
impossible. Failure leads to dismay, dismay leads to arrogance, and
arrogance leads to an inability to distinguish between what’s right and
wrong. And without that moral fortitude, we may as well be animals
without a higher purpose.
Frederick Engels wrote, “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves
overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such
victory nature takes its revenge on us.” Engels may have been a dunce on
economics and class sociology, but his warning was prescient to
progressivism’s attempt to subvert the shackles of reality.
Listening
to today’s progressives, you get the impression that we are on the
inexorable path to utopia. People are more tolerant and accepting than
ever before. Abortion and birth control are readily available. Sex
selection of the unborn is on the rise. Marriage has ceased
being a sacred bond and is becoming a catch-all term for any contract
agreed to by one or more persons. As government takes over more swaths
of the economy, promises of material abundance keep escaping the mouths
of politicians.
The
implicit goal in all of this progress is total domination over nature
by man. Poverty, sickness, intolerance, ugliness -- the left wants
nothing to be left to chance or God’s hands. The power to mold the
future so that it fits one grand vision is the Holy Grail of
progressivism.
A slew of recent news stories elucidate this sweeping objective. In Slate, transgender activist Christin Scarlett Milloy condemns the practice of assigning gender at birth. She -- her preferred pronoun, though this photo
makes me question its accuracy -- writes that upon birth, a child’s
“potential is limitless.” The second that gender is determined, the
newborn’s “life is instantly and brutally reduced... down to one
concrete set of expectations and stereotypes.” Essentially, the baby’s
future is split, so that its career as a blue collar construction worker
or ballet dancer is now predetermined.
Not
giving the infant or the parents consent to “choose” gender is now seen
as a great injustice. It may sound strange but it shouldn’t. In the
great age of choice, why shouldn’t we subvert the tradition of gender
assignments? Are we not free unless we can ignore a doctor’s “cursory
assessment” of what’s between a newborn’s legs?
If
nature is the enemy, then biological reality must be defeated. Hence
the move to transcend gender, and its social expectations, through
medical operations. But even the construction of artificial genitals
doesn’t seem to be enough to soothe the unrest of those uncomfortable
with binary gender roles. Milloy notes that transgendered individuals
have a higher rate of suicide and
depression than cisgender folks. Why is this? Milloy attributes it to
bullying and being assigned the wrong gender at birth. The idea of
revenge for believing man can overthrow nature is not given a hint of
consideration.
Striving
to master sex and gender is not the only mission of progressives. Now,
there are attempts being made to counteract life’s one guarantee: death.
A recent front page story in the New York Times detailed
how a funeral home in New Orleans specializes in posing the corpse of
the recently deceased performing their favorite activity. One deceased
woman was photographed while propped up at a table “amid miniature New
Orleans Saints helmets, with a can of Busch beer at one hand and a
menthol cigarette between her fingers” as was her wont in life. The
practice, which originated in Puerto Rico, is still relatively rare. In
San Juan, viewings in recent years have included a “paramedic displayed
behind the wheel of his ambulance” and “a man dressed for his wake like
Che Guevara, cigar in hand and seated Indian style.” Some people are
beginning to request this type of funeral upon their death. Elsie
Rodríguez, vice president of the Marín Funeral Home in Puerto Rico,
rationalizes the custom because it eases the burden felt by the
deceased’s family. He told the Times, “the family literally suffers less, because they see their loved one in a way that would have made them happy.”
In
the scheme of things, does posing the dead engaged in a favored
activity really corrupt the soul? Perhaps not, but it’s indicative of a
fanciful longing to not leave things as they are. This year, a man in
Ohio received his wish that upon his death, his body was to be placed on
his Harley-Davidson motorcycle and towed to the cemetery in a custom
plexiglass coffin. Did parading his lifeless body around bring some
happiness to his spiritual being? We’ll never know the answer. But does
clinging to the last vestiges of earthly existence undermine a person’s
contribution to the living world? I believe the answer is “yes,” despite
what reprieve it may bring for family members in anguish. As Wesley Smith of
the Discovery Institute writes, conducting “living” funerals is just
another contemporary disposition that attempts “to deflect the ultimate
reality of human mortality.”
Gender-bending
and death denial aren’t consequences of a flawed philosophy on life,
but merely symptoms. If you believe mankind can conquer the mountains,
squash all injustice, and create a society of pure happiness, then it
makes sense to push the limits of nature and see if God will truly stand
down to His own creation. Of course, in the fight between God and man,
man must always lose, or else he wouldn’t be man to begin with. That’s
why progressivism’s march to conquer nature nearly always ends in
despair.
Pushing
too hard against reality is liable to create unintended ramifications
that distort and disorder our own well-being and sense of purposeful
design. In short, it conflates what we know to be true with what’s
false. Pretending the dead are still alive doesn’t bring proper closure.
It only delays the inevitable reckoning. Just the same, arbitrarily
choosing one’s gender based on personal inclinations doesn’t appear to
boost self-esteem. The epidemic of suicide attempts among transgendered
individuals says there is something highly disrupting about challenging
one of nature’s most embedded realities.
Without
a recognition and acceptance of natural order, things become
disorienting to the point of meaningless. If good and evil are no
different, if life and death hold no meaningful difference, if girl and
boy are simply words with no distinction, then what foundation do we
have to plant the flag of reality? It is as Milan Kundera wrote:
“...itKundera
reminds us of Stalin’s son, who ran to electrocute himself on the
barbed wire when he could no longer stand to watch the poles of human
existence come so close to each other as to touch, when there was no
longer any difference between sublime and squalid, angel and fly, God
and shit.”
called this feeling of weightlessness in a world crying out to be
grounded “the unbearable lightness of being.” When it attaches itself to
a person, our moral compass goes haywire. Life begins to lose all
direction. The only way to recalibrate ourselves is to rediscover our
role in the universe.
The
difference between the man who sees reality as living truth and the man
who must control all external factors is surrender and pride. Those who
surrender accept the path given, and find joy along the way. Those who
have the overwhelming need for control -- and are prideful enough to
believe they can succeed -- end up destroying what nature provides. They
pull reality’s various poles together, flattening the landscape until
they are left with nothing.
In Canto III of Paradiso,
Dante summed up the ordered liberty position perfectly: “For in His
will is our peace.” Those who try to conquer the laws of nature will
never find peace because they are ultimately trying to accomplish the
impossible. Failure leads to dismay, dismay leads to arrogance, and
arrogance leads to an inability to distinguish between what’s right and
wrong. And without that moral fortitude, we may as well be animals
without a higher purpose.
