Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
 

Self Styled 'Liberals' in the modern age- Are they truly 'liberal'?

Author: Poulami Gangopadhyay
Publication: My Ind.net
Date: August 14, 2018
URL:      https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/self-styled-liberals-in-the-modern-age-are-they-truly-liberal

For the present generation, movies, animation and amusement parks on Dinosaur themes are quite popular.  These extinct gigantic creatures are most attractive to us. This trend of Dinosaur becoming a part of the pop culture has begun with the iconic Stephen Spielberg movie Jurassic Park. Since then, Hollywood cultivated our fascination for dinosaurs and in that process they gathered their share of revenue out of our fascination. The newest addition to this dinosaur series is Jurassic Park: The Fallen Kingdom which I recently watched with my family members. It is needless to say that the audio-visual special effects in these two hours met my expectation from Hollywood.  Not only my two little children, but me too enjoyed them thoroughly. The dinosaurs were alive and kicking in the movie theatre and the action increased the heart bit for all of us. I thanked the makers of this movie for making the movie in 2D instead of 3D which would have made it difficult for my children to enjoy the movie.

The storyline revolved around rescuing the dinosaurs from a volcano-inflicted Central American island of Isla Nublar where many different species of dinosaurs used to live. However, the dormant volcanos came to live and the risk of dinosaurs being extinct again was on the cards. The hero of this movie was a veteran of U.S. marine and also was the trainer for velociraptor, a species of dinosaur.  The heroine, Claire Dearing, was an operation manager of the dinosaur park and was also an activist for the safety of the dinosaurs.

On the other hand, Benjamin Lockwood was the owner of that dinosaur park whose principal assistant Eli Mills was the villain who hijacked the mandate of the dinosaur-loving-philanthropist towards personal gains. Mills appointed Owen and Claire for the cause of rescuing the dinosaurs.  Mills was selling the dinosaurs to corporates for profit so that the corporations (usual Hollywood villainous entity) would use dinosaurs as weapons of mass destruction against humanity. This is the reason that Mills hired goons armed with advanced military weapons who used the volunteers to secure the dinosaurs themselves. Poetic justice ensured the eventual victory of the hero and the heroine of the movie who freed the dinosaurs after defeating the hooligans.

The philosophy of this movie is purely of Hollywood who consider themselves as the torch-bearers for America. These words were once uttered by none else than George Clooney. The Hollywood people live in their most expensive palaces amidst much wealth. Perhaps this life-style makes them somewhat devoid of reality. This purpose of this article is to analyse the psychology of Hollywood liberals. I do not claim any professional expertise but only my real-life based understanding.

A debate in the American Senate was portrayed in the background. One of the parties in this debate argues for a safe habitation for the dinosaurs. The other party is less concerned for dinosaurs than for the safety of the human civilisations. The modern man may not be able to live with dinosaurs. The dinosaur of this movie is perhaps symbolic. An inhabitant of a different social system is perhaps like a dinosaur in the worldview of a typical western liberal —primal, unintelligent and yet again required for furnishing the museum of western civilisation. The typical liberal is not much concerned about their real welfare or not willing to concede them the same space which he grants to himself. The sympathies of a typical liberal does not look sincere but appears more like an attempt to put spotlight to his own  liberal identity and a plea for fame. 

As for instance, it is a typical propaganda that liberals are sympathetic to Muslims living in Islamic societies. A public debate was arranged in the Netherlands during 2001. The topic was who needed the Voltaire most—the western society or the Islamic society. Almost all the speakers concurred on the opinion that the Western society needed Voltaire the most now. This opinion was greatly biased as the parameters of progressiveness in the western society were subtle rights of equality for the homosexuals or unbiasedness to the atheists’ rights. These rights are much ingrained in the western society. However, most Muslim societies award only death or severe punishment for atheism or homosexuality. Therefore, none dares to declare himself homosexual or atheist in those societies and naturally there is no movement for homosexuals or atheists. This absence of movement, no way, implies equality and justice for the marginal groups. However, the words of a typical liberal convey the message that equality and justice are more respected in the Islamic society over the Western society.  Can we be true to our heart to say that the liberals view the Muslim societies by their own standards? Rather it appears that they view the Muslim society dinosaur-like primitive and offer an entirely different standard to judge them for progressiveness.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an immigrant from Somalia was present in that debate. She protested this attitude of the liberals and asked if the West would not grant the Muslim society even one Voltaire after having so many Voltaires (Infidel: My Life, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Free Press, 2007). The significance of her question is that the inhabitants of the Muslim society too deserve to be as broad-minded as that of the Westerns. Labels of progressiveness as lullaby to Muslims actually hurt the journey of the Muslim societies to progressiveness and liberalism.

The literal meaning of liberal is now abolished. Instead this word is used as a label, as a medal. Consequently the contemporary Liberals are not literally liberals themselves but persons avaricious to fame and popularity. They view the holders of a counter viewpoint as evil and such viewpoints poisonous. It may be rational to not include the dinosaur that is dangerous for human society, in our world. However, the moviemaker of liberal ideology does not let the audience entertain any such thoughts. Those who were not saviours of dinosaurs were portrayed as negative characters. Any non-liberal must be avaricious and evil. It is natural for the liberals as they campaign for human rights of the terrorists but least concerned for men who are victims of terrorism themselves. Often anti-terrorist words sound to them as intolerance or hyper nationalism.

Let us again consider the dinosaurs as the terrorists of the modern age. Then, we can spot deep similarities between their creator scientists as portrayed in the movie and the liberal intellectuals of the present age. The scientists of this movie always stand for the idea that let the dinosaurs be fierce, dangerous and ruinous for human civilisation; even then, their existence must be protected. Similarly, when barbaric inhuman terrorists of human society become quite dangerous for human civilisation, the intellectuals go for protecting those terrorists. These intellectuals view the terrorists as misdirected and naïve, almost like the primitive dinosaur.

In reality, as the coexistence between the dinosaurs and modern human living is almost impossible, exactly like that the destruction of human civilisation is sure to happen if the barbaric inhuman terrorists of human society are empowered. With the destruction of human civilisation, the liberals themselves will be abolished too. This simple truth is never digested by the liberals desirous of their own popularity alone.

- This is a translated version of the original < https://www.bangodesh.com/2018/08/jurassic-world-liberal-psychology/>Bengali article published in bangodesh.com
 
«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements