I just want to remind you of a quote that is at the bottom of every page at the People’s Cube:
=====================
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”
~ Ayn Rand
=====================

The purpose of this piece was precisely that – to contest absurdities that threaten to become the country’s official ideology.

Have you ever read anything more gut-wrenchingly depressing in all your life?

The voice of our future.

Goodbye, America. You were a nice country while you lasted.

Although his points about the philosophical, ideological, and political rot inside the liberal educational establishment are very well taken, the WaPo staff editor Charles Lane nevertheless concludes his piece with an obligatory curtsy and praise to the glory of liberalism. Was he afraid that if he didn’t do that he’d be ostracized by the rest of the WaPo staff and denounced as a traitor? Lane’s show of mental pliability included, of course, a mandatory denunciation of “the soullessness of capitalist commerce and technology” and “fundamentalist religion.” Better be safe than sorry. The stigma of a closet conservative can totally destroy one’s social life and career, right Mr. Lane?

This is so similar to behaviors exhibited by Soviet journalist chickens: no matter how far they strayed outside the common barnyard, they would always come back to the chicken coop, praising the socialist birdfeed and denouncing “the soullessness of capitalist commerce” and “fundamentalist religion.”

If you ask me, capitalist commerce has more soul than the entire liberal media, academia, Hollywood, and the “liberation theology” combined. For starters, it enables their very existence and gives people enough leisure time to think about the meaning of life. It is the “bleeding heart” liberals who are diverting the nation’s creative and intellectual potential into what Lane very aptly describes as “politicized obsession with race, gender and sexuality; the denigration of canonical works by ‘dead white males’; the callow mocking of convention; the notion that truth itself is merely a construct of power and self-interest.”

How many more ugly excesses does Charles Lane need to see before he realizes they are the inevitable result of the liberal mentality? No other fruit can grow on that tree. Loving liberalism but denouncing Aliza Shvarts is like Barack Obama loving his pastor but denouncing his “extreme” statements. Or like Barack Obama loving Bill Ayers but denouncing his terrorist bombings. Or like Barack Obama loving the Teamsters Union but denouncing Jimmy Hoffa. Wait, didn’t all liberals love the Soviet Union but denounced Joseph Stalin?

It doesn’t work like that way in the real world. You can’t love the bark but denounce the bite.