Rachel Dolezal Is Just Another Person Driven Insane By Liberalism

Liberalism is a force of hopeless insanity.

It's important to understand this upfront. Progressives have been waging a brutal, endless war against Truth, and this is where it leads. To Bruce Jenner. To Rachel Dolezal. To much worse things than these, like the destruction of unborn life and the annihilation of marriage and the family. This is liberalism. Why are you shocked by any absurdity or atrocity it creates when this same force has been eating our culture alive for decades?

Did you just now notice?

[mattwalsh-social-instory]

I don't mean to write another thinkpiece on Rachel Dolezal. Everything that can be said about that pitiful woman has been said, and then some. The only thing I will offer in her defense is that it is quite unfair to call her an embarrassment to the NAACP. I mean, come on, this is the NAACP we're talking about here.  It's been doing a superb job of embarrassing itself for a while now. If it could collectively feel any ounce of shame, it would have died from it years ago. Perhaps right around the time when it honored R.Kelly with an Image Award.

Now, if Dolezal had been outed as a Mitt Romney voter, that would have terribly damaged the institution's reputation. But since she's merely a phony who lied about her race, defrauded colleges, chastised real ethnic minorities for not being ethnic enough, invented hate crimes, claimed her adopted brother was her son, said that her pretend black father fled the south after assaulting a cop, made up a story about being born in a teepee in Montana, and generally exhibited the integrity of an incarcerated sociopath and the prudence of a drunken toddler, the NAACP has unsurprisingly defended her.

Even less surprising is that Dolezal has gone from taking a defiant stance to a heroic one. Explaining her decision to step down from her leadership role, she effusively praised herself, affirming her commitment to "empowering marginalized voices" (by mimicking them) and to advancing the "cause of racial and social justice" (which she exploited for personal gain).

Screenshot The Today Show

Beginning her media tour on Tuesday, she stopped by the Today Show and was treated to a softball interview that began with Matt Lauer patting her on the back for "starting a discussion on race and what it means in this country." As an aside, if you haven't noticed by now, this is how to get out of facing the consequences for any atrocious act you happen to commit: Just say you were trying to start a conversation.

"I wasn't robbing that PNC branch, officer. I was just trying to start a conversation about income inequality and the banking system!" 

Dolezal never took responsibility during the interview, instead pontificating about the "complexities of her identity," which is a phrase that means nothing, and insisting that she's been identifying as a black woman since the age of five. (Apparently, she took a brief respite from identifying as black when she sued Howard in 2002 for discriminating against her as a white woman, but, you know, technicalities.)

In any case, the whole affair came to light at a fascinating moment in our culture, as the country is still wrapped up in its months-long celebration of Bruce Jenner.

The connection is obvious and undeniable: Liberals insist that biology, genetics, anatomy, and chemistry have nothing to do with gender, and that an individual can choose to defy all of these factors if their feelings run contrary to their physical reality. Therefore, why can't a person identify as another race if that's how they feel? Indeed, race is already a murky subject, and every person on Earth is some combination of various ethnicities. My whiteness is far less hardwired and far more difficult to define than my maleness, so if the latter is negotiable, certainly the former must be as well.

Further, if our "inner identity" can be mysteriously mismatched with our physical exterior -- as if the self is not a synthesis of body and soul but a soul contained in, and divorced from, the body -- who's to put limits on the extent and form of this incongruity? If I can be a male inside a female body, then why not a black man inside a white man's body? Or even a black woman inside a white man's body? As many have observed, what disqualifies or disproves anyone's contention that they are, beyond transgender or transracial, even transpecies? Maybe I feel like a flying squirrel or an Amazonian toad or a hydrangea bush. Maybe I feel like an Asian eunuch inside a black woman inside a white man inside a white woman inside a potato. If we have claimed the authority to be something other than the thing God (or "nature") constructed us to be, there are no boundaries.

Plenty of people have made these points, and they are good points. Unassailable. Inarguable. Surely, the "transgender" fantasy will be abandoned by progressives once they see how far their flawed logic can go, right?

Not quite.

While plenty of liberals have attacked Dolezal and attempted, feebly, to distinguish between her ridiculous charade and Bruce Jenner's, many others, from MSNBC hosts, to writers for USA Today and Slate, to college professors, have embraced the idea that a person might indeed be transracial. CNN published an editorial this morning emphatically declaring that Dolezal has "a right to be black." I'm guessing it will be only a few years until the Supreme Court finds that entitlement hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights.

The term "transracial" started as a satire among conservatives, but has been unironically adopted by liberals. Now conservatives are left staring from the sidelines flabbergasted, saying, "Uh, guys? We were joking..." But it's too late. Liberals, as they have demonstrated time and again, will not back away from the slippery slope. They'll grab a sled and slide right down that thing. If you point out how one liberal proposition leads to an even more absurd proposition, they'll happily defend the more absurd one. Maybe not right away -- they have to act like it was their idea first-- but eventually, that particular bit of morbid idiocy will be a matter of liberal dogma.

[sharequote align="center"]Modern liberalism is nothing more and nothing less than the categorical rejection of truth.[/sharequote]

Rachel Dolezal is a pathological liar, so as more of her deceptions come to light, progressives will have no choice but to disown her. But she did "start a conversation" about transracialism -- even "changing the way we think about race", according to NPR -- and I am confident that, sooner rather than later, the transracials will be standing alongside the transgenders and the trasableds and the transspecieds and the transdimensionals and the transrobots, all enjoying the status of protected and prized minority communities.

If you doubt such an eventuality, if you think liberalism will turn back once it sees the depths of its own dementia, you clearly do not understand what you're dealing with.

Modern liberalism, so called, is nothing more and nothing less than the categorical rejection of truth. It is not scared or slowed or dissuaded by any form of untruth, because it is inherently, down to its very essence, in every fiber of its hideous being, a lie. It is an enemy of truth and an ally of anything that undermines it. I recently made the argument that the liberal transgender superstition completed the final step into total, full blown anti-truth lunacy. Once they have perverted the very definition of being, there is nowhere else to go. This is it. Whatever faint glimmer of reality still shone from its dying core has now been extinguished. That was my theory, and it took less than two weeks to be proven correct.

But as I said, none of this is shocking. Certainly there's something unique about the outright renunciation of biology by a scientifically advanced civilization, but it all stems from the rejection of Truth and the idolatry of the self, which is not only an old evil, but the oldest.

Liberalism is not some quirky new invention that came along in sincerity, with good ideas and bad ideas, to try and help our society progress. No, it is not new, it is not concerned with progress, and it has no good ideas at all. It is the worst and most ancient of ideas, now slightly updated and with hashtags.

Liberalism -- which is really just a political label for the religious belief in the supremacy of the self -- was born before time, with Satan's rebellion against God. Non serviam, as the tradition goes. Satan refused to worship God, who is the only Truth, and chose instead to serve himself. He turned his gaze away from the light of what is Real and into the darkness of his own selfishness.

We all do this at various points of our lives, probably on a daily basis. It's called sin. Whenever we serve something or someone other than God, we sin. This is a struggle for all of us; obviously liberals are not the only sinners in the world. But liberalism has made all of these various rebellions into a religion of their own. Yes, we all battle temptations, but liberalism has systematically declared these temptations righteous. Whereas any human fights against the urge to treat himself as if he is greater than God, liberalism professes that the self actually is greater than God. Hence, the individual can alter his biological makeup if it will fulfill his desires, or redefine the purpose of marriage if it will make him happy, or strip the humanity from a child in the womb if it will make sex more fun and convenient.

This is, literally, satanism.

These days, most self-identified Satanists would be the first to tell you that they do not explicitly worship a theological entity known as "Satan." They simply practice the Satanic motto coined by Aleister Crowley 100 years ago:  "Do what thou wilt."

That's the whole of the Satanic law, and the sum of progressive philosophy as well. Of course there are exceptions -- do what thou wilt, unless what thou wilt promotes or advances moral absolutes -- but aside from those caveats, go for it.

Serve yourself. That is all that matters. Self-love is not only the highest but the only form of love. This is how liberals and Satanists can claim that horrors like abortion are acts of love. It is death and murder in service to the self, therefore it must be good. Likewise, when a "transgender" mutilates himself, he does it in service to himself, therefore it must be good. If it'll satisfy your urges, it's good. Period.

What we've discovered is that, when it comes down to it, our society has two options: the Truth or the Lie. God or ourselves. Heaven or Hell. Liberalism has rejected the former in its entirety, and every day we are treated to another example of how dark and confused a culture becomes when it casts aside the Truth.

Is it any wonder that Rachel Dolezal thinks she can become another race just by "identifying" as one? This is the lunatic creed of progressivism. The self is god. I can do what I want because it is what I want, and there is no force greater or more important than my own desire.

That was Dolezal's thought process, and it's completely consistent with mainstream liberal philosophy.

Really, she's no worse than any other liberal.

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.