The essential problem with leftism is moral equivalence, plus relativism
I wrote a reply to a fellow blogger. I had spoken of diplomacy:
Diplomacy? With killers and rapists?
… and he replied:
I have to respectfully disagree this time. The point of diplomacy is that you have to deal with people you may not approve of.
This was my reply:
A priori and circular. You are assuming one must be diplomatic. Whyever would you assume that? It’s by no means a given, especially with a known corrosive threat.
Islam is not “an alternative religion of peace and harmony”, it is an oppressive death cult. Tell the Rotherham 1400 about loving Islam. Tell the millions of other victims.
Only a liberal thinks in terms of equal love for both the body’s own defences and the virus coursing around to kill those defences. For some reading on the essential problems with liberalism, see blogger DforDoom.
At that site, his major theme is the issues with liberalism, yet this in the quote is that very liberal equivalence.
At the same time, I received an email from an old friend [and in my book, despite the words below, is still so] and his letter highlights again the issues with left-liberalism or as it has merged with today – global elite leftism.
You cannot reason with a leftist
There are so many reasons:
1. His background is leftwing, e.g. in teaching, having a leftwing family member constantly feeding in leftwingism, drip, drip drip.
2. His reading material being almost solely leftwing, e.g. Guardian, BBC, Independent, NYT, LAT, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, all TV channels, all regional dailies, approved university reading lists.
But never [in a positive way] Breitbart, Fox or the mass of bloggers and tweeters from Ann Coulter to Dana Loesch to Judge Jeannine to James Woods to Jacob Rees Mogg to Nigel to Marion Le Pen to our Julia to this blog now and occasionally Mail political comment when it’s not doing its usual schlock of Femail and reporting on the dregs of society.
In short, there are those who [possibly inadvertently] drink in a constant diet of leftwing perspective every day with their coffee and yet would feel they are quite on top of all the issues, with all the facts at their fingertips [see Jennifer Lawrence].
And that is the essential problem – we’re not even using the same language. How can two people debate, let alone converse, when they’re not even using the same definitions, the same language, the same thinking processes?
For example, with Marion Maréchal-Le Pen appearing at CPAC, I would wager that my emailer would not be following any speech from that conference, none, including hers, but neither will I be looking at any TED talk or anything Mad Cow Maddow on MSNBC trots out.
There is therefore no basis for communication whatever.
Which is sad because two friends have therefore been split over politics. What was that about never discussing politics, sex or religion in polite society?
What is extreme?
Come back to the actual positions of Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, not those reported by the hostile press.
The Independent said “Far Right politician to speak at conservative conference”.
Breitbart spoke of a “conservative” politician to speak.
So who is correct?
Well, one of the commenters pointed out that conservatism or centre-rightism is that which supports nation, family [e.g. Manif in France], making a country great again, it’s usually against abortion as murder [especially the selling off of baby parts] and is for economic growth, businesses and jobs. It is against rampant welfare and for regulation of immigration, just as any country is.
It recognizes extant threats to a country, e.g. the EU, Islam, the establishment, the UN – all of those are betes noires for reasons laid out thousands of times in blogs and some other publications, but comparatively few compared to the torrent of left-liberal media out there.
Those are Marion’s positions.
Anything “Far”, on the other hand, allows of direct action to rid society of the pests. The essential difference between “Centre” and “Far” is in the process followed. Here is my own political compass reading:
Anyone who wishes for the law to take its course is by no means “Far” Right.
Far Right is very close to Far Left – Antifa, Corbyn, Clinton, Sanders, Obama, Bill Ayres,
Sauron Soros, Pink Pussy neck parades – it favours coercion and direct action – bombs, destruction etc., violence, disrupting TV debates, wrecking people’s Sunday lunches, smashing Starbucks windows etc.
A centre-righter favours the process of law and castigates the law which allows a baby killer to get a six months suspended sentence. Corbyn is Far Left, Ken Clarke is Far Right, as he supports corruption and oppression, Alastair Campbell is Far Left, as is Peter Hain.
The Far Left and dogooders are equally fond of flinging the term Far Right at any they disagree with, whatever their politics.
Centrists – real ones [see political compass above], not the rubbish which claims the epithet – favour, as said before, “nation, family [e.g. Manif in France], making a country great again, [they’re] usually against abortion as murder [especially the selling off of baby parts] and [are] for economic growth, businesses and jobs. [They are] against rampant welfare and for regulation of immigration, just as any country is.”
Anyone “Far” favours forced integration into a communist, federalist, politburo run organization, e.g. the EU. Remoaners are of the “Far” designation.
The left always goes ad hominem early
The tone of the email I received, which I did not appreciate, was that I, personally, had a mental issue, probably due to the heart and flu, the stress. and what were the grounds for this medical diagnosis?
I pooh-poohed diplomacy for jihadis.
So in joining the huge numbers of voices crying out for the rampant, open slather, unregulated and in fact welfare-supported immigration of the worst elements from those societies to stop, that translates as a mental problem?
Do you see the overweening arrogance in that smug assumption, the self-satisfied conviction that PCism, by definition, must be correct and anyone else with legitimate concerns has a mental issue?
That, I’m afraid is sheer gall.
And that is why there is no basis of communication between the 52% and 48% today.
It is a death cult, pure and simple. It is oppressive – women, FGM, body mutilation, jihadi bombs, rapes, grooming gangs etc. which we see publicly but there is also an undercurrent of low level stuff. Let me give you an example.
I take a taxi to faraway places and speak with the drivers and they are up in arms around here just now. The issue?
There are two. First is that some businessman’s wife is now running the show and has introduced impossible rules and demands for money, knowing zero about the taxi game. Never let a woman run a large organization [see May].
The second is the new drivers from the nearby city who have now been merged, by her, into one huge unit at top prices. And those new drivers are ethnic, let’s say, and go by their own rules, muscling in on other drivers’ patches, choosing the plum jobs and aggressively taking them etc. They are aggressive and violent towards the other drivers because that is what they came into the country with – those attitudes and dog-eat-dog practices.
Now, I spent 12 years in a Muslim country – how many of my critics and/or mudslingers can claim that, eh? Lived side by side, even had Muslim girlfriends? So don’t tell me about benign Islam. That was as benign as it got, because it was heavily hemmed in by the Russians themselves who don’t muck about, as we know.
Their religion is fanatical. All religions, e.g. climate fanaticism, atheism, sciencism etc., have their fanatics and have their peaceful and non-fanatical. A fanatical atheist is Dawkins, a benign one is usually a bit agnostic, most readers here are that and good luck to them. They’ll allow me my belief, as I’ll allow theirs, and not take their bat and ball and go home.
All right, I had a Muslim gf and in our interfaith dialogue, I mentioned some of our standard Christian prayers, e.g. the Lord’s Prayer, in an effort to find common ground.
“I’m not interested in your prayers.”
That was her response. I’m not going to bother going into Islam’s precepts in this post any more because there are so many posts passim about just that and if the reader does not know of these, then he can either find them or else he’s never been interested in this in the first place.
The central point here is that this ex-gf of mine was, to any out there, a non-killer, a non-rapist, a non-mutilator in a hijab, precisely the “peaceful” type which my emailer is referring to and which left liberals always point to as a reason for tolerance.
And yet she was fanatical to that extent:
“I’m not interested in your prayers.”
Plus in so many other views.
The history of Islam is of conquest – the very language is about conquest and submission and its aim in Europe has been recognized by countries on the front line. It is no accident that Hungary, Poland and now Italy are taking these stances on borders. It is no accident at all.
But the soft fools in America, UK, Sweden, must needs inflict all the no-go areas, grooming gangs, constant violence on their peoples in order to assuage their moral relativism and equivalence. Only when the country is collapsing will these destructive fools be shoved aside by the sane, when it’s almost too late and so much damage has already been done.
And that whole process from woe to go is simply insane when the whole issue could be nipped in the bud even now, at this late stage.
What gets us called Far Right extremists is that, being educated in the old way, we see early. We know our history and see precisely the same things happening over and over again, history repeating itself.
Which is why gobby Millennial tin cans like Lawrence want us to die off fast.
So let’s get down to this ludicrous argument the left trot out:
Most are benign, it’s only the occasional crackpot who harms
1. For a start, the “occasional crackpot” is all it takes. It only took one boy for all those deaths, it only took one van driver, it only took 12 Muslim men for those Cologne rapes. [By the way, that boy was a Democrat.]
The violent fanatic need only be 0.001% of the total demographic to wreak havoc, not a whole population.
2. Just because the 99% do not physically go out and rape or kill, does not mean they are not in accord.
“I’m not interested in your prayers.”
Also explain honour killings which the “peaceful” women themselves go along with. And explain which death cult is overwhelmingly represented in this abhorrent practice? Plus FGM?
For how long will the naive left continue to stand in the middle of that river in Africa?
3. There are certain cults which always, with no exceptions, produce discord once they are allowed entry into a society, just as flu viruses cause discord the moment they’re allowed even the slightest presence in the body.
When Islam reaches 10% in a society, then that society is in trouble. Always has been, always will be and for a socio-politico-religious reason – devotees are called on to cause trouble, by definition of the cult’s dogma. Look at France and its banlieues.
The thing which annoys me so much is that our homegrown, quietly smug PC fanatics present themselves as paragons of peace, equality and tolerance when in fact the policies they insist on are anything but peaceful and tolerant in their implementation, they oppress.
Meanwhile we of the harsh tone, whose mantra is leave us alone to enjoy our own culture, live our own lives, are constantly put on from above and coerced into things we don’t want … and for that, we’re called fanatics or “Far”.
Are you calling every Catholic “Far”? I’m not Catholic but can still say that that’s a real cheek.
That’s why the centre [see political compass above] say to everyone from the communitarians to the government to the MCB – you can all just eff off.
Just went into Twitter by the way and saw this from Australia: