As the Left’s second reality collapses, the Lefties still believe that they can dig themselves out of the sinkhole of their abysmal expectations. The Left being a purely collectivist entity, it responds to every crisis, as to this crisis, by amassing itself in crowds. As Gustave Le Bon remarked in his study of The Crowd (1895), crowd-behavior is de-individuated, non-conscientious, and essentially religious or sacrificial. An individual who might, left to his own soul-searching, renounce such things as morality-renunciation and participating in hatred-inducing activities, will find relief from his qualms in the degree to which he congregates with others, whose collective massiveness assuages his guilt-pangs. Once a nucleus of moral self-betrayers has gathered in close proximity, conscientiousness, which is individual, no longer impedes the impulse to action. Guilt is distributed. The subject, forfeiting his subjectivity, may do as he wills, however basely he wills, without the smart of any remorse. The religiosity of the crowd is primitive religiosity, of course. It wants to feel Karl Marx’s revolutionary Blutrausch in the spectacle of immolation, even if external social strictures prevent the immolation from being real but rather confine it to being only symbolic. (Policemen murdered in ambushes are actual victims; men of European ancestry pilloried by female multiculturalists at “White Privilege” seminars are symbolic victims, who are permitted walk away with their humiliated lives.)
The Left being parasitic and resentfully imitative, it acts by mockery and duplication. The upcoming inauguration of President Elect Donald Trump to his office having the status of a traditional ceremony, the American Left, in response to the breakdown of its second reality, has organized a number of spoilsport events in Washington DC on the same day, in an attempt to draw attention from the main attraction. Among these planned inauguration-distractions the called-for Women’s March figures prominently. According to the Daily News (12 January 2017), “The inauguratioin [sic] is on the verge of being upstaged.” Trump will suffer humiliating eclipse on the day of his official accession to the presidency because, as the news-story reports, the inauguration ceremony itself “may take a back seat to the protest denouncing his presidency, including an estimated 200,000 women expected to participate in the Women’s March on Washington.” Is there a grammar of delusion? There is, at least, a consistent grammar of perceptual and verbal incompetency. Notice that little modal verb may. Firstly, the proper modal verb in the syntactic context is might, not may. Might is the verb of possibility while may is the verb of permission. Notice therefore also how the predicated fiasco of Mr. Trump’s assumption of office, governed by the active form of the verb to be, depends on an event that has not yet happened – and that might, or might not, happen although its possibility is misnamed under the modality of permission.
Lefties are always permitting themselves to do-what-they-will. The only thing forbidden is to forbid.
The same Daily News article is replete with self-confident assertions by the march’s organizers. Here is a sample, which I have reduced to a single paragraph: “Organizers said the number of protesters at the women’s march may outnumber the people at the inauguration. ‘We join in diversity to show our presence in numbers too great to ignore,’ march-organizers said in a statement. The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new administration on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights.” Once again we notice the ungrammatical substitution of may for might and the all-too-typical barbarism of a plural pronoun used in reference to a singular subject (“their” for “our new administration”). In a study of college-student prose I once called attention to the ubiquity of plural pronouns used as references to singular subjects and attributed it to the perverse success in K-12 education in preventing students from thinking for themselves. In the Leftist world, it is convenient that the singular should always automatically convert itself into the plural and that the individual should convert himself into the crowd
The quoted statement reveals other telling features. It invokes the religious word diversity, which is now mandatory in one out of three sentences. A seven-sentence paragraph without the word diversity would not be acknowledged as correct by a Leftist composition instructor.
Controversy has beset the planned march, which ultra-Leftists within the Left have now denounced for being too much about white women and not enough about disempowered women of color. The Northeastern white goodies thus find themselves hoist on their own petard. Lynne Lechter, writing at The American Thinker, remarks as follows: “Many black participants advocated for a black woman only march. One African-American blogger wrote that white women should: ‘Shut up and listen more.’ Others chimed in stating that white women should acknowledge their white privilege and leave it at the door.” The monster begins to devour and digest itself – et comme il le fait, il pète.