BETWEEN THE LINES
THE NEW LEFT IS THE OLD LEFT
Exclusive: Joseph Farah exposes stunning evidence of progressives' goal of thought control
Chelsea Clinton said something recently that stunned me.
It’s a completely contradictory and incoherent statement, demonstrates the irrationality of today’s so-called “progressive” movement and chilling about what is demonstrates about the nature of left-wing ideology today.
“We also have to recognize, particularly at this moment, that sexism is not an opinion,” she said.
“Islamophobia is not an opinion. Racism is not an opinion. Homophobia is not an opinion. Jingoism is not an opinion. So, I think that in our posture of listening, [we] also have to get comfortable with standing up and speaking out because I also agree that for those of us that have been blessed – and, by definition, all of us on the stage today have been blessed – there is a responsibility with giving voice to the voiceless but also using our own voices.”
Watch Chelsea Clinton’s statements:
The forum for this statement was the 2017 CARE National Conference in Washington that claimed to be bringing together “citizen advocates, corporate responsibility professionals, philanthropists, humanitarians and international development experts for three days of inspiration, learning, connection and advocacy, concluding with face-to-face congressional meetings on Capitol Hill.”
Among the other speakers were Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Barbara Pierce Bush, daughter of George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.
But I want to focus on Chelsea Clinton’s bizarre assertion because of what it shows about the left’s growing intolerance of opinions it rejects and total disregard for free expression.
So let me dissect it.
Is sexism an opinion?
Depends on how you define it. If sexism is defined as bias against women, I have no doubts there are people who are sexist. If sexism is defined as bias against men, I have no doubts there are people who are sexist.
But we all know that’s not how the left defines it. I note that Dictionary.com has already redefined sexism to these three possibilities:
- attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
- discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
- ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.
Do you note the way definitions have been deconstructed by “progressives” without anyone even noticing?
Most people, I believe, would agree that sexism, defined as bias against one of the two sexes, exists.
It’s a reality. In fact, in some societies, it is an egregious institutional problem. But that’s not what Chelsea Clinton and her “progressive” friends are talking about. How do I know?
The very next sentence she utters gives it away: “Islamophobia is not an opinion.”
The implied definition of the make-believe word “Islamophobia” is “fear of Islam.”
I’ve studied Islam most of my life. I don’t fear it. But I do reject it. I believe it is a false religion, a cult and that wherever it is practiced it degrades and dishonors women and non-Muslims.
Thus, there is good reason for practitioners of other faiths in a Muslim society, especially women, to fear it.
Racism is an abomination. I agree it’s not an opinion.
I don’t know anyone who thinks it is an opinion.
But it does not equate with “Islamophobia.”
And, if you use the standard “progressive” definition of racism, then there is no such thing as anti-white racism, which is absurd.
These are platitudes. It’s part of the new, new left’s attempt at “newspeak” to enforce a code of expression that stifles debate by force as illustrated on most college campuses today.
Now here’s where the incoherence and irrationality enter into Chelsea Clinton’s statement.
She goes on to say: “So, I think that in our posture of listening, [we] also have to get comfortable with standing up and speaking out because I also agree that for those of us that have been blessed – and, by definition, all of us on the stage today have been blessed – there is a responsibility with giving voice to the voiceless but also using our own voices.”
She and the left are doing just the opposition of that.
They don’t want to give voice to the voiceless.
They want to stifle voices, intimidate those with whom they disagree, deny that people can should be expected to have differences of opinion and express them freely in an open society.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the left tried to reinvent itself because of the obviously oppressive, totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union.
So, the young guard called themselves “the New Left,” so it wouldn’t be forced to take on the political baggage of a genocide and imperialism. That’s how it got its voice.
But, as part of that New Left back then, I saw the dark underbelly and rejected its totalitarian and murderous instincts.
The New Left today can dress itself up anyway it likes, but when you see and hear statements like the above, you can rest assured it’s the same Old Left with the goal being absolute control of thought and expression.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/the-new-left-is-the-old-left/
My comments: The Main Objective of the "Left" is to Dethrone God and His Word, as that gets in the way of their Man Made Religion of Secular, Humanism. It is God and His Word, Who Opposes them, and they Hate that, and they Hate those who Represent God and His Word. Islam is the most Anti-Christ Religion on Earth, and Islam and the Secular Humanists have the same father.
No comments:
Post a Comment