This mish-mash of conflicting, paradoxical beliefs is what is now accepted as wisdom. If you stray far from this playbook, you're evil or insane. The churches, education systems, and mainstream media all preach something similar to this playbook, making it prohibitively difficult to get people with an open mind to fairly listen to any opposition. The brainwashing is so constant and so thorough that we now have countries like Sweden banning home schooling while implementing non-gendered pronouns so that children never realize they are boys or girls while growing up. Any toy that boys tend to favor is taken away and replaced with a toy they don't like, so that their behavior doesn't stray from their female student compatriots. These children, that you cannot home school, are forced to listen to lesson books that assert that two Mommy's, two Daddy's, or any combination of random strangers is just as normal and good a family structure as a mother and a father.
They are deliberately castrating men from childhood up, to turn them into some sort of 'social man' that they have dreamed up as the ultimate form of humanitarianism. What is the ideology of humanitarianism? It's a chimera of completely different philosophies grafted on to each other, in the hopes of creating a system that grants every possible desire to the greatest possible number of human beings. You could say it is a mutant philosophy designed to be the only possible justification for a mutant, oversized appetite which it continues to try to feed, instead of ever just saying "No."
Humanitarianism says that insofar as it is possible to grant someone their desire, it should be obligatory to grant it. It goes something like this, if a desire can be achieved without a large objection from anyone else who suffers as a cause, it should be supported by the government, the culture, and everyone else. The most important thing on Earth is that no one suffers, not even mentally. No one must be criticized for their decisions even when it's not banned, because that would still cause suffering. Furthermore, no one must ever feel guilt or shame for their decisions, even when they aren't banned from doing them, or even criticized for doing them. We must remove all possible suffering between people and their desires.
It is about the size and function of government in our lives — whether we value social safety nets or social Darwinism.
It is about how the government collects and spends money and whether those activities are ruled by a spirit of fairness or disproportionately favor the most well off.
If people desire things like a nice car, good clothing, good food, a nice house, or anything else, they must be given it via tax dollars. Also, these can never be called handouts and the recipients must never feel guilty for receiving charity. Instead, these are issues of 'fairness.' Supposedly, these people originally deserved all of these goods in the first place, and under a system of perfect, cosmic justice, they would have earned all these goods naturally. It is only that somehow greedy schemers manage to steal all the money away and reroute it to themselves instead. Fairness dictates that we undo the actions of these greedy schemers and restore the cosmic, perfect justice that just so happens to give everyone enough money to afford everything they ever wanted.
There is never any evidence given as to how greedy schemers are taking the proletariat's hard earned wealth. It's just a throwaway belief designed to remove any stigma from receiving tax dollars from others, which is basically nothing more than organized theft and parasitism.
Next off, humanitarianism doesn't care about the past, the future, or the unborn. Since none of these people are capable of raising a voice in protest, they can be trampled over freely. The limits to desire under humanitarianism is when it raises too large a hue and cry in protest from others who suffer too much under the burden of granting their next appetite. If the people being harmed are mute, and cannot speak up in their own defense, then they are ignored and torn to shreds. This is why overpopulation, going tens of trillions of dollars into debt, abortion, gay adoption, the demonization of the past for the sake of the presents' self-esteem, and other such atrocities are all a part of the humanitarian program. The beneficiaries are made happy, and the victims don't matter.
Now humanitarians can consume any amount of resources by just putting it on the future's tab, and can collect any amount of taxes from the rich because who cares about them anyway, while blaming everything bad that happens on Earth on someone else, the past, instead of the present. This gives them a good fuzzy feeling. They can consume far more than they produce, while feeling like the most morally superior people to ever live, never experiencing a moment of shame or guilt in their lives.
But this is where their philosophy becomes so paradoxical:
Whether you believe, as I do, that all liberty begins with personal liberty. That none of us has the right to impose our beliefs and values on others. That each of our bodies is sovereign, to be governed as we so choose, without the interference of government, so long as our individual choices don’t impede or encumber the liberty of others.
This makes no sense. How can each individual be sovereign if abortion is legal? The body of the baby doesn't seem to have any rights, even the right to life. Doesn't it impede the liberty of a baby when you murder it? And if none of us has the right to impose our beliefs or values on others, why is taxation legal? What about government regulations? Just seconds before he was talking about the need for fairness and a social safety net, but those are, exactly, 'beliefs and values' which he now says cannot be imposed on anyone else by government force. What just happened there? Nevermind, the humanitarian switches between egalitarianism and libertarianism whenever he so pleases. He is like Humpty Dumpty, his words mean whatever he wants them to mean.
This is about each of us being able to love, and marry, whomever we chose.
But this is a LIE. The proponent of this article is not suggesting that we should get rid of all laws regarding marriage restrictions. He is not championing marriage to children ages 0-16, incestuous couples, polygamous groups, coupling with wild animals, marriage to a particular brand of soda, or any other type of marriage. Therefore, all he really means is 'this is about gay marriage.' He phrases it in the terminology of libertarianism, but is not actually a libertarian, or else all marriages would have to be accepted equally, with no distinctions. A libertarian would say 'government has nothing to do with marriage. You can 'marry' whomever you please, but it has no legal significance, it's just an empty term, because we treat all citizens equally, whether they're married or not. The humanitarian, however, uses marriage as another tool to transfer resources to them from the government. They want specifically gay marriage so that gays will be given all the specific advantages straights were given to marry by the government. However, this is extremely unfair because the marriage laws meant to aid straight couples were in fact to aid stable, monogamous family formation and the creation of the next generation, something gay marriage will never do. Therefore, they are trying to gain unearned benefits and an unearned high-status title simply because they want it, while posing as libertarians just striving for freedom.
This is about women having unfettered and unfiltered access to a full range of reproductive options, which is most fundamentally about the physical and economic well-being of both them and their families.
This is another lie. They don't want women to have reproductive options, they want women to have killing options. They are doing the exact opposite of reproducing. They are finding ways to not reproduce, to kill their own fetuses. They want a full range of options in how to kill their own babies. Why can't humanitarians ever tell the truth about what they are actually attempting to do? This is because it is part of their credo that not only must they satisfy their desire, in this case their desire to kill an innocent baby, but that they must never be criticized for it via harsh connotations to words, or feel any shame or guilt about doing it. Thus 'murder' becomes 'reproductive opportunity.' Virtually no abortions are done for the health of the mother or the child, this category is at most 10%. The other 90% are done simply so that the mother can avoid the fuss of pregnancy and giving birth. Remember, there are tons of infertile couples who would love to adopt any child born in America, so the moment the baby is born it could be whisked away to be raised on someone else's dime. Childbirth and neonatal care is also covered by the government, so it costs nothing for a woman to stay pregnant until birth. It is simply a matter of how inconvenient the whole process is. 90% of abortions are murder for the sake of keeping a flat belly.
No one gets pregnant without first choosing, irresponsibly, to have vaginal sex without wishing to get pregnant. No one gets pregnant without first choosing, irresponsibly, not to use birth control. So every pregnant woman has already chosen through a long series of choices, "I will have casual sex, I will have the one and only type of sex that can lead to pregnancy, I won't use any birth control," to put themselves into a position where a new person, with a soul, feelings, thoughts, goals, ambitions, dreams, hopes, and rights of their own, could be created in their womb. The fact that this new person, who could well be a better person than them in the long run, happens to be located inside of them, is their own fault via their own neglect. Instead of punishing these people for their neglectful, irresponsible decisions by making them go through the inconvenience of pregnancy, instead we punish the children by chopping them into little pieces and then vacuuming up their body parts into a bag. These babies flee from the knife with all their strength, but their screams are mute and so their pain, their death, the denial of all their opportunities, doesn't matter to the humanitarian.
This is about how we prioritize and provide direction and incentives for our educational system so that we produce citizens who are well equipped to compete in a tightening global job market.
In other words, we need to pay teachers more money, despite the fact that no amount of money has been shown to raise test scores in any of our previous attempts to raise teacher funding. The humanitarian cares deeply about people's self-esteem, so it will not accept any fact, or truth, that might hurt people's self-esteem. This means we can never say that some people are just dumb, and education is wasted on them. We must instead put everyone through graduate school, so that they'll be 'prepared for the global job market.' According to the humanitarian, who insists on living in lala-land, everyone at birth is capable of being the next Einstein, if we simply paid teachers enough. But the fact is there is no indication that education is worth much of anything, besides learning how to read, write, and do basic arithmetic. Intelligent people learn not via education, but on the job training, how to succeed at their jobs. Most people get degrees in fields completely unrelated to their jobs, or fields so vague that they have only the most tenuous connection to the job they're working in. There is only a tiny portion of dead-serious degrees, like 'electrical engineering,' that can be considered necessary to compete in the 'global job market' after graduation.
There is some benefit to using education as a means of disseminating your nation's culture and heritage, teaching people about morality and patriotism, but since the prevailing ideology of America is evil and the history they teach children is pure lies, even this benefit is the exact opposite, instead one of educations' most baneful aspects, making it impossible for people in good conscience to not home school their children. These home schoolers, however, aren't given generous teacher's salaries, even though they over and over again show in test score results that their teaching is more effective than public school teachers' teaching. In fact, they are still forced to pay taxes to support public schools, that their children don't even attend. I assume this somehow fits in with the previous need for 'fairness' and 'personal liberty,' which were so assiduously called upon before.
"It is also about whether we will deal humanely with people who are in this country illegally, many of whom have been here for decades, many of whom work and are otherwise law abiding, many of whom have been raised and educated here."
Many of whom refuse to learn English. Many of whom are criminals. Many of whom are on welfare. Many of whom's first loyalty is to their country of origin, and not to the United States. Many of whom transfer money to families abroad instead of recirculating it in the country they live in. Many of whom took jobs from native American workers. Many of whom depressed the wages of all Americans by creating an inordinate amount of competition for the lowest level of jobs. Many of whom are receiving tax benefits far above the taxes they pay, such as free education, free health care, free prisons for their criminal underclass, etc, etc. Many of whom get drunk and plow into crowds of innocent children while driving, because their culture doesn't care about drunk driving, and their genes are less capable of breaking down alcohol than ours. Is it humane to treat all these people humanely? When do we intend to act humanely toward American citizens, who are here legally, by removing these public scourges from our midst?
Then there's some Marxist rant about progressivism is the inevitable tide of history and we cannot go back, only forward. As though everything should always be changing, even the laws against murder or rape, and we 'can't freeze ourselves in time.' The idea that anything is basically right and doesn't need to change is outside of their Marxist radar. They cannot conceive of such a thing. Meanwhile, they refuse to make all sorts of changes we are arguing for, while PRETENDING TO BE FOR CHANGE. For instance, we want to change America, by deporting all the undesirables. Must they realize that we can't freeze time, and that things must always change, because this is a dynamic world? Nope, suddenly, they are for the status quo. No one can be deported! Everyone must stay exactly where they are! Blather about the necessity of change is only aimed at Republicans. Democrats never have to change their stances on anything.
The basic idea is that we can afford to satisfy illegal immigrants, so we should do so. The victims won't scream too loudly, and the illegal immigrants have desires to be granted, so 'obviously' we must help them in any way we can. There is never any hint of 'justice' or 'merit' in their system. So long as it doesn't raise a big stink, it should be done. This slippery passage allows them to not have to back, say, completely open borders, or 100% tax confiscation. Always they say, 'softly,' 'gently,' 'let's not hurt people too much.' And on the other hand they grant every desire they can within their power. They end up looking like reasonable, mainstream, moderate, sensible individuals. Pragmatism is the name of the game. But they never understood that a soft, slow, gentle influx of poison, drip by drip, into a society can still result in death by poison. They cannot fathom the idea of 'thresholds.' If you fuck up a system beyond repair, even if you do it slowly, it will still be fucked up beyond repair. Every additional illegal immigrant, every additional teacher receiving an oversized paycheck, every additional dollar of debt, every additional capital gains tax which disincentivizes investments into new scientific solutions, we creep that much closer to the precipice. And eventually, with just one more drip, it becomes a chain reaction that gathers its own momentum and cannot be stopped.
In 2008 our desire to grant every last minority a free house caused a worldwide economic collapse. We never truly emerged from this recession. Japan hasn't, Europe hasn't, America hasn't, and the developing world depends on us as customers so they haven't either. There is no proof that their deranged desire to grant every 'possible' dream or aspiration to the 'unfortunate' hasn't already plunged us off a cliff. But to compound this with trillions of dollars of deficit spending we can't afford, brutal taxes that cripple all possible business profits and thus all possible motivation to hire workers or start a business, useless classrooms that actively misinform students with a pack of lies, and a porous border where any sort of human refuse can come waltzing through and start claiming free benefits, is more than any country can bear.
Under humanitarianism, which prefers self-esteem to reality, and prefers the present to the future or the past, its advocates are intentionally blind to the consequences of their policies. They will not, they cannot see what could possibly go wrong if they further disrupt and destroy the good people around them for the sake of their pets' appetites. All they see is the false goods they can achieve for their clients -- some petty objective like wanting to keep a flat belly, or wanting a nice big house, or wanting to live a few extra years, or wanting palliative care for chronic illnesses caused by their own bad habits of smoking, drinking, and overeating. They never see the eventual costs, which is the absolute and total ruin of the country. The complete extinction of the productive class that makes all these goods possible, and then the extinction of the parasite class that relied on them for lack of a host. It's already happened in Zimbabwe. It's happening in South Africa. Logically, there is no reason why it won't also happen here in America, no matter how gently or slowly they take the same course and follow the same ideological route.