More Links to Moral Retardation

Let us be clear: the Left are bigots as vile as any man who ever donned a KKK hood or the uniform of the SS.

A bigot is one who judges a case before any evidence is in based on the group-identity, usually the race, of any man brought before him, and whose judgment always condemns the man on the grounds of a few over-broad and stereotyped condemnations, or, rather, slanders.

A bigot is one who repeats and amplifies his slanders whenever more and ever more evidence piles up showing the judgment is not merely premature but false to facts.

In this case, as the Nazis were about the Jews or the Klan about the Blacks, so are the Left about Christendom, also called Western Civilization, and any who support or defend her. If you think they are less violent than these two groups, look up the word ‘Democide.’ They are less violent where and only where they have not the power to carry out their bloodthirsty dreams.

In this case, just as the Nazis called the Jews grasping and unpatriotic, or the Klan called the Blacks lazy, lusty and shiftless, so too does the Left call civilized men dishonest and malign oppressors, possessed of a mental disease, straining at the frying leash which, the moment the leash parts, will fall upon the poor helpless (fill-in-the-blank) identity group, and tear them to bits in a backlash.

When the blank is filled in with the word Black, the mental disease is Racism; when the blank is filled in with Homosexual, the mental disease is Homophobia; when the blank is filled in with the word Female, the mental disease is Sexism.

In no case is any opposition to any Leftist claim allowed to be an honorable or respectable claim from an honorable opponent. All opposition the Left is defined by the Left as being an insanity.

In this case, with no sense of the absurdity of the claim, the moronic Left has decided to fill in the blank with the word Muslim, and the mental disease is Islamophobia.

If any doubt me, let us look at the latest of endless examples:

Brendan O’Neill over at NRO writes:

The British press has never seemed as out of touch as it is today. All our broadsheet papers are packed with pleas to the people of France, and other European populations, not to turn into Muslim-killing nutjobs in response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The Guardian frets over “Islamophobes seizing this atrocity to advance their hatred.” The Financial Times is in a spin about “Islamophobic extremists” using the massacre to “[challenge] the tolerance on which Europe has built its peace.” One British hack says we should all “fear the coming Islamophobic backlash.” And what actually happened in France as these dead-tree pieces about a possible Islamophobic backlash made their appearance? Jews were assaulted. And killed. “Don’t attack Muslims,” lectures the press as Jews are attacked.

Across Europe, among the right-thinking sections of society, among the political classes, the response to the massacre of the cartoonists and satirists has been the same: to panic about how Them, the native masses, especially the more right-wing sections of the French population, might respond to it. The blood on the floor of the Charlie Hebdo offices was still wet when brow-furrowed observers started saying: “Oh no, the Muslims! Will they be attacked?”

Read the whole thing: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396098/islamophobia-myth-brendan-oneill

To highlight the true level of utter blank-faced, dead-eyed, soulless, drool-mouthed, flatulent moral idiocy at work, allow me to quote the opening paragraphs of one Mr Richard Seymour, the British hack referenced above, writing for the Jacobin.

The oozing mealy-mouthed faux-intellectualism and ponderous  if not elephantine delicacy with which news is obscured rather than illuminated in this pustule of an article must be savored to be believed.

As a drinking game, take a shot of tequila each time the writer introduces a labyrinthine word or expression to refer to something not named, and, it is hoped, one will be too stone drunk to finish this monstrosity and affront to the journalistic profession:

Many journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo have been murdered by bampots brandishing what appear to be machine guns at close range. It is too soon to have a complete, coherent political narrative of these killings. All one can have at this point are the correct but platitudinous points about there being no justification for this, that all attacks on journalists are abhorrent, that freedom of speech must be defended to the last drop of blood, and so on. If you really need that sermon, you’re in the wrong place.

However, there is a wider narrative that is emerging in the rush to judgment, as news media attempt to stitch together details — at first entirely circumstantial — into an explanatory story. The assumption is that the killers are members of some sort of Islamist group, possibly linked to Islamic State, and are exacting political retribution for the publication’s regular satirical attacks on Islam by executing its journalists. And about that, I do have something beyond the obvious to say, just as a starting point.

The first point is that French President Francois Hollande declared this a “terrorist” attack very early on. Now, we don’t need to know any concrete details to understand the purpose of this. “Terrorism” is not a scientific term; it is inherently normative.

The uses of “terrorism” in such contexts are by now well understood. …  it functions as a narrative device, setting up a less-than-handful of people as a civilizational threat evoking stoic defense (of “British values,” “la république,” “the West,” etc). It justifies repressive and securitarian responses that tend to target Muslims as such…

So, then. It is too soon to have a complete coherent ‘narrative’ is it, Mr Seymour, you loathsome worm?

The idea that these were Muslim terrorists retaliating for insults against their Prophet — in other words, the idea that the gunmen meant what they said was their motive as they shouted ‘Allah is great!’ over the bodies of their innocent victims — this idea is merely a convenience, an explanation, a narrative device, aided by an unwise ‘rush to judgment’, in order to justify repression and ‘securitarian’ responses bent on oppressing Muslims. The poor, poor Muslims.

Whenever I think of the poor Muslims, men like Saladin and Mohammed Ali, toiling under the lash in our sugar cane plantations in Cuba or dying in mines beneath the Andes, my heart goes out to them! Why, why cannot we stop this age-old oppression!

Clearly, our first concern after the bombing of Pearl Harbor is to protect Japanese minorities like Tojo or Hirohito from the backlash. Some extremist like FDR might declare war on Japan or commit some other act of unthinkable bigotry and oppression!  Clearly, our first concern after mass murder of Jews and Gypsies at Auschwitz is to protect the poor, sad, bug-eyed, weepy and helpless Prussians against the backlash.

The degree of intellectual dishonesty and hatred for one’s own civilization to write or publish this dreck, or read it without suffering the urge to kick Mr Seymour smartly down a flight of stairs, is simply beyond calculation and beyond my power to describe.

‘Terrorist’ is not a scientific term; it is inherently normative. And, as all we postmodern empty-hearted empty-headed zombie worshippers of the Great Void know, to be normative is to establish an irrational and unfair standard of good and evil, or in other words, it is against the postmodern norms to be normative. The only evil is to call evil ‘evil’.

As it so happens, Mr Seymour, ‘Asshole’ is not a scientific term; it is inherently normative.

It is making a normative judgment about your character, honesty, and conduct. And it happens to be a correct normative judgment.