The left’s increasingly murderous hatred for conservatives
One of the themes of my recent comments is that liberals are gradually permitting themselves to think exterminationist thoughts about non-liberal whites and traditionalists. Here is another iteration of that theme, a professor who brings his liberal convictions to their logical conclusion. If we are responsible for all of the evil that he attributes to us, then we are deserving of death, in his view. The article is from the dubious World New Daily, so take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, this fits the emerging pattern of liberal hatred for, and impatience with, non-liberal whites.
Yes, one must read WND with a grain of salt, but the article is quoting published and normally reliable sources, though I haven’t yet read the sources themselves.
WND reports that the Austrian music teacher, Richard Parncutt, has written:
In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential G[lobal] W[warming] deniers … GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate …
In this connection, Stogie at Saberpoint writes:
Moonbattery blog has an article today called “Brainwashing Works.” The author, Dave Blount, points to a sign in NYC’s Penn Station where a graffiti artist has penned “Kill All Republicans!” This sentiment is not an isolated occurrence. Twitchy.com reports daily the most vile bile from the left, the unhinged hatred, the desire for violence against Republicans and conservatives. The Democrat Media Complex has created a vast swath of human botnets, which can be set off in mass to launch denial-of-liberty attacks on any and all who oppose the New Progressive Order. Like computer botnets, the human variety is programmed and programmable and act in concert, unhindered by scruples or actual thought.
I would say this phenomenon began with the insane hate the left conceived for G.W. Bush following the 2000 election. From that point on, leftist commenters essentially stopped engaging in even a pretense of rational argument and would just use pour hate language on conservatives, which made reading the leftist Web unprofitable to say the least. I thought the election of Obama would calm the left, and maybe it did, for a few weeks, but then it started up again and increased and continued increasing.
Lately swarms of human maggots on Twitter have tweeted their joy at the death of General Norman Schwarzkopf yesterday, expressing hope that he died painfully and is now burning in Hell. They have said similar things about former President George H.W. Bush, who is in the hospital with a serious illness, hoping that he dies “in agony.”
[end of Stogie excerpt]
A reader writes:
Calls for the deaths of conservatives are entirely consistent with liberal theology. I use the word “theology” deliberately. You have made the insightful point that Islam is not just a religion but also a political system. Liberalism is a political system that is also a religion.
I had an unpleasant conversation with an “atheist” at a Christmas party the other day. I recited the usual liberal belief system: abortion, gun control, equality, etc. When he agreed that he supported all those things, I pointed out that all those things are provided by government and that his religion is government. I recited G.K. Chesterton’s remark that people who don’t believe in God will believe in something else. The discussion was much uglier than that, as you would expect.
Liberals invest their beliefs with religious fervor. Calling for the deaths of conservatives is like calling for a fight against those heretic Lutherans or the need to stamp out Popish heresy. I’m afraid we’re heading in the same direction.
Conservatives have not found a way to articulate counterarguments.
This is why the Tobin article you linked to yesterday is so unremarkable. Liberals ALWAYS argue in bad faith. Their entire political structure is designed to conceal their true aims. So policies that begin by restraining “military style” features on guns (whatever that is) ends with Feinstein’s ban on guns. Many conservatives don’t see this.
From this and other recent entries, there emerges an odd fact that calls for analysis: Liberals, who have no problem with being killed by schizophrenics, blacks, and Muslims, want to kill conservatives.
But it’s not an odd fact at all; I’ve already dealt with it numerous times, at least implicitly, in my tri-partite or three-character theory of liberalism (here, here, here, here, and here): Liberals practice tolerance toward the alien, unassimilable, and dangerous, even to the point of letting the alien, unassimilable, and dangerous murder them; while at the same time liberals murderously hate conservatives because the conservatives fail to conform to the liberal program of suicidal tolerance toward the alien, unassimilable, and dangerous.
Matthew H. writes:
Their murderous rage (far exceeding the “hate” they constantly and falsely impute to us) is related to their proclaimed willingness to allow themselves to be killed rather than defend themselves. Both are rooted in the leftist’s fear of ever having to admit he is wrong. If he will reserve the right, even theoretically, as a last resort, to defend himself, he admits he has been wrong about guns, equality, human perfectibility—his whole world-view. Likewise, his barely suppressed and increasingly evident desire to kill sane people (or to have them killed in his name) is prompted by his inability to tolerate living, breathing refutations of his depraved dogmas.
At bottom, like Cain, he will not repent. In his pride he will not honor the Lord. In his tiny universe, he is sovereign. Rather than humbly admitting his own lack of wisdom and knowledge, he can only conceive of destroying those whose words and conduct contradict his insanely puffed-up conception of himself. Such is the satanic mindset of the ascendent class in western society.
“[H]is barely suppressed and increasingly evident desire to kill sane people (or to have them killed in his name) is prompted by his inability to tolerate living, breathing refutations of his depraved dogmas.”
That is powerful. I think you’ve made a new contribution to our understanding.
As there is a certain similarity between Matthew’s comment and mine, I want to point out that Matthew’s comment came in just as I was drafting my comment immediately preceding his; he was not taking off on what I said. Further, his point is different from mine. I said liberals want to kill conservatives because they fail to conform to the liberal dogma; Matthew says liberals want to kill conservatives because conservatives are living refutations of the liberal dogma. That is deeper and gets closer to the truth. What Matthew is saying is that liberals feel that their structure of insane lies, on which their entire identity rests, is actively threatened by conservatives; that’s why conservatives must be killed.
Matthew H. writes:
It is an incontrovertible fact of history that the abysmal blood-guilt of the atheist left exceeds by orders of magnitude the crimes of any other nation, religion, or ideology, Islam included. This fact alone is sufficient to refute categorically leftists and their whole program and should be brought out and used to beat them over the head and shame them wherever and whenever leftists dare to publicly spew their filth. We can no longer afford to tolerate their evil lies. We must loudly and forcefully speak the truth, never ceding and inch.
In a matter of hours after reading your post how murder the left is towards conservatives I get this message. A “progressive” with an anti-gun icon wishes violence in the most vulgar way upon me. It is almost beyond comprehension that they cannot see how their behavior contradicts their posturing. But they are completly blind to it.
Simon F. writes:
My observation of the latter-day Jacobins under discussion is that they practice a form of thinly-disguised highly aggressive interpersonal competition predicated on a warped, unattainable version of “moral” (as they deem it) perfection. The public self-criticism in which they indulge (e.g. noisily avowing the need to overcome their misgivings about senseless self-sacrifice in dangerous settings) seems to me to be the Western counterpart to the secular confession culture of Mao’s China. The self-criticism serves to ingratiate themselves with the regime and act as ante-upping reproach to other “players” in a game so disingenuous, so twisted that it’s hardly surprising they direct such obscene bile towards conservatives’ “living, breathing refutations of depraved dogma.”
Steve R. writes:
The ideas in this post are akin to a paragraph of yours in a 2008 post entitled “Thoughts on our time,” where you wrote:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 29, 2012 10:29 AM | Send
[T]he more powerful a lie becomes, the more, not less, intolerant it becomes toward the truth. Any remaining element of the truth anywhere is seen as a threat. Thus for decades religious people and atheists/agnostics tolerated each other; tolerance was what liberalism was about, right? But now that the society is becoming more openly non-religious, the atheists have dropped tolerance and are calling for the complete elimination of religion. The EU says that people who believe in intelligent design are enemies of society.
I was able to locate this because I have a compendium of aphorisms—mostly inspired by VFR—in which there is an entry I’ve entitled, “As a lie accrues power, it seeks to obliterate any vestige of the truth that could expose it.”