(UK) I came across this letter whilst reading The Guardian today. It perfectly illustrates the duplicity of the left on how they operate. That actually the people throwing all the allegations of hate since Trump, Brexit who are actually the biggest haters around are those people from the left.
Do you know what I love about the Guardian’s opposition to racism? It’s always stops at the border of white victims. I don’t suspect it’s interested in the trending hashtag #RapeMelania, or #AssassinateTrump, or the thousands of tweets sent threatening to kill, stab or maim Nigel Farage.The above letter to an article (written by this person) about the rise of racism in the UK was deemed to have broken the rules for not abiding to The Guardian's community standards and so it was deleted. But you know what, it sums up the left to a T.
Nor is it concerned about placards at Remain protests inscribed with ‘old white men, please die.’ Or articles in mainstream publications (GQ) calling for the disenfranchisement of old people. Nor is it concerned with quotes like this, from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, on white men:
“I don’t like them. I want them to be a lost species in a hundred years.”
Nor are they concerned about Lena Dunham, a woman with 5 million followers and who appeared on Hillary’s campaign trail (she even interviewed her), calling for the extinction of white men. Or Pat Glass (Labour MP) proclaiming ‘old white men are the problem.’
It’s why it couldn’t care less about Harvard professor’s, and this is in his own words, advocating ‘abolishing the white race.’ It’s why it couldn’t care less about the BBC parading ‘black heroes’ or ‘black culture’, knowing full well a simple context switch would be met by its own calls of a return to fascism.
It’s why it couldn’t care less about The BBC writing horrifically sexist articles like ‘do we need men?’, or the Independent going one further and writing an article entitled ‘white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again.’ It’s why it couldn’t care less about Sharon Osbourne laughing hysterically on a panel full of women, and for six minutes, about a woman chopping her husband’s penis off with a kitchen knife.
I suspect that’s because their opposition to sexism isn’t actually opposition to sexism, it stops at the border of female perpetrators/male victims. It’s why they were the leading light in reporting and activism on Boko Haram kidnapping 250 girls, alongside an endless conveyor belt of celebrities, politicians and even the world’s largest intelligence services. What they weren’t concerned about was the 10,000 boys kidnapped, however.
You see, that can’t be exploited as a gender narrative. It’s why it has no problem with horrifically racist and sexist terms like ‘too white’, ‘white privilege’ and ‘toxic masculinity’, which, were they delivered in any other context would be met by, again, its own calls of a return to fascism.
There’s mountains of this stuff, none of which is met with the level of outrage reserved for a world-class scientist who wore a garment depicting a naked cartoon female and who was forced into a grovelling apology, live on-air.
Do you know the worst part about all of this? This isn’t some random racist or sexist on the street, these are prominent members of the intelligentsia and people in positions of power.
Then again, it doesn’t actually oppose anything; it’s just accentuates, repeats, contextualises, omits or rationalises ‘truth’, or filters it by the identity of the perpetrator or victim. It’s also fully comfortable with homophobia, its opposition stops at the border of fawning over a homophobic communist tyrant.
It’s perfectly comfortable with sexism, racism and homophobia, in fact it propagates it. It only ever opposes it when it’s politically convenient to do so, in other instances – white male victims – it just omits it from the narrative, or contextualises and rationalises it.
Why? Because it isn’t actually liberal. Progressivism (collectivism, eg, the common good) has, since its inception, been set-up to oppose classical liberalism (individualism) and fight for what it deems is the ‘common good.’
The common good, as advocated by progressivism (feminists, leading politicians, intellectuals, even Supreme Court Judges, etc.), in the 1920’s, was eugenics, and forced sterilisation of citizens it deemed ‘unfit’ or ‘lacking in education’ (remind you of anything?) in the hope of manufacturing a superior (white) race. It served as a blueprint for the Nazi variant, an ideology which went onto slaughter hundreds of thousands of disabled people.
The ‘common good’ was also, as far as H.G. Wells, a founding member of ‘the progressive league’, was concerned, was support for what he termed ‘liberal fascism.’ You see, that’s the problem with ‘the common good’ and prioritising the collective ahead of the individual: soon enough, inevitably, it will turn round and attack you.
Of course, this is all enforced with a religious devotion to the principles of cultural and moral relativism, a framework which would, when extended, deem interfering with a National Socialist’s right to perpetrate the holocaust ‘ethnocentric’ or ‘racist.’ The Guardian doesn’t do ethics, morality or principles, and it certainly doesn’t have any respect for intellectual consistency.