No thanks, but I’ll raise my mug to you.

I have lifted most of the content herein from Takimag.com, an essay by Christopher DeGroot titled “multicultural frauds”, since I am not quite up to his level of eloqunce…yet. My comments are in bold: “Here, then, is a glimpse of the future of America. Here is the monstrosity of leftist power, the sentimental authoritarian mind.” To what is he spefically referring? “In 2017, the Brookings Institution took a survey of 1,500 current undergraduates. To the question of whether a student group had the right to shout down or otherwise disrupt a speaker who is “known for making offensive and hurtful statements,” 51% answered that they found such a tactic justifiable. One in five students said that violence was acceptable in silencing a politically incorrect speaker. Though slightly more Democrats than Republicans rejected the use of violence as a counter to politically incorrect speech, 62% of Democrats, compared with 39% of Republicans and 45% of Independents, believed that it was permissible to scream and chant in order to stop a controversial (read: non-leftist) speaker from being heard by the audience.

“To a significant extent, the U.S. is free speech; democracy is the freedom to disagree and therefore offend, because without such friction we cannot argue our way toward the best means of dealing with our many problems. Yet today many students, instead of being taught to think for themselves, instead of nurturing the ability to learn from experience itself, whose greatest fruit is wisdom, learn to misperceive reality in terms of an a priori agenda: the progressive dream of the academic left (this dream is what I have been calling, in my blog posts, the “Perfectionist Progressive Utopian wetdream”). To be sure, many of these students mean well; they think they are on the side of ‘social justice,’ nobly standing up for the oppressed. Still, they are like a high-speed train without a conductor.

“Compared with ordinary Americans, whom he regards as ‘unenlightened,’ the multicultural intellectual is like a sham believer who points a self-righteous finger at his sinful fellow citizen: ‘You are the problem,’ he asserts. ‘It is your ignorance that precludes social justice.’ (Why do I say Perfectionist Progressive? The goal is a world in which everyone attains to the standard of enlightenment that the perfectionist imagines himself to possess–everyone that is who is left alive after the eggs have been broken to make this particular omelet.) In a better, manlier time, such a type would be nothing but a laughable diversion. As it is, this accuser is increasingly common and highly influential. So we must expose the truth about the multicultural intellectual.

“There is high comedy in the fact that although the multicultural intellectual, with his ignorant simplifications and petty resentments, looks down on the ordinary man, it is the latter who has the more healthy and balanced nature. Whether his work clothes are dirty overalls or a dark suit, the ordinary man does not hesitate to laugh off the anxious lies of women’s studies, to which the multicultural intellectual must pay respect. ‘Toxic masculinity?’ the blue-collar laborer asks with mocking grin. ‘No thanks, ugly duckling. I’ll have a beer with my buddies and wish you luck at getting a life, too.’ Likewise, his nature is hardy enough not to get bogged down in sentimental despair upon intuiting that, deep human value invariably being a matter of the severest selectivity, not every desirable end can be achieved, unhappiness shall always abound, and minimizing the suffering of what is nearest must be primary.”