Why Hatred is Endemic to the Left


Pages: 1 2

My favorite sign at Tea Party gatherings reads something like “It Doesn’t Matter What This Sign Says, You’ll Still Say It’s Racist.”  Well, it doesn’t matter what Jared Loughner’s motives were, the Democrats will still blame it on a “climate of hate” supposedly created by the Right.

Of course, this effort to pin “racist” motives on the Tea Party and to blame the massacre in Tucson on Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the millions of concerned Americans who comprise the Tea Party movement is itself nothing more than an attempt by radical leftists to ignite hatred for those who have the audacity to challenge their utopian agenda.  Given that these attacks began before a shred of evidence existed about Loughner’s true motives, these attacks are by definition bigotry and prove yet again that the purpose of Modern Liberals’ arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth and everything to do with their blind hatred for those who challenge their policies.

In the wake of these vicious and hateful attacks, many have cited Rahm Emanuel’s famous quotation about “never letting a good crisis go to waste.”  Here is a “good crisis” by Democrat standards and folks like Paul Krugman at The New York Times (of course) did not let even a second go to waste before launching his hate-filled attacks.  Not even Krugman denied the bigotry behind his attacks, since a good working definition of bigotry is the ascribing of negative motives and deeds to a category of people without regard for the facts.

But a quote more important to understanding the utter shamelessness of the Democrats in using what they saw as a wonderful opportunity to silence dissent comes from arguably the most beloved and influential Modern Liberal (read: radical leftist) of all, Howard Zinn, who declared that “Objectivity is undesirable.”  Zinn declared the facts to be “undesirable” because “if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”

Those who seek to inflame hatred for the Right don’t care one whit about the facts – they find the facts to be undesirable because they get in their way of their “social aim.”  Thus, it doesn’t matter what the Tea Party attendee’s sign reads, the Democrats will still say it’s “racist” because their “social aim” requires them to fire up hatred for those who question their policies.  Hatred is the goal of Modern Liberalism because hate will blind their followers to the objective fact that the “social aim” of the Modern Liberal – the dominant force in today’s Democrat Party and the ideology that rules academia and the news media, is infantile folly.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_Mac

    The "hatred" is PURELY a political methodology to attain political ends. Remember the invective hurled at Bush on a daily basis? The minute he was out of office, he was all but forgotten.

    It's about demonizing the individual in order to destroy the credibility of his/her policy….because they can't win the policy argument on its own merits.

    • wizard1964

      "Disprove a bigot against his will,
      and he will remain of the same opinion still."

      "The mind of a bigot is like the eye of a camera: the more light shed on it, the more it contracts"

  • evergreen78

    Another winner, Mr. Sayet! Thanks! :)

  • okrahead

    Attorney General Eric Holder outlines plan to stop hate speech:

    From the desk of united states Attorney General Eric Holder:

    To: His Excellency, President for Life B. Hussein Obama, all Department of Justice Employees, all Federal Communications Commission Employees:

    Dear Great Leader and Comrades in The Struggle,

    I have assembled a crack team of attorneys to address the issues of violence which have sprung up in our nation. You will be familiar with many of these attorneys, as they are the same team which enabled me to bring the New Black Panthers case to a successful conclusion. At the direction of Our Leader, His Excellency and President for Life B. Hussein Obama, I have, with the assistance of this team, crafted a plan whereby we may put an end to these violent outbursts which have disrupted our society.

    The first thing we must understand is that apprehension of individual criminals will do nothing to reduce the level of violence in our society. In point of fact, giving too much attention to the prosecution of individual perpetrators of violence is in all likelihood a contributing factor to the rise in violence we have seen of late. What we must instead do is concentrate on the root causes of violence. Once we have successfully eliminated the root causes of violence, there will be no more violent outbursts and thus individual prosecutions will become unnecessary and obsolete…. Read the rest here… http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/2011/01/

    • Huffer115

      DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! Tim Robins.
      Though there is so much truth in this comment, it can be dangerous if read by a liberal. They will actually believe every word and be waiting anxiously for the Zero hour to join in with the detoxing of American society.
      I once believed there was a majority of the race that were brighter than myself, I know better now that I was sorely mistaken…!

    • StephenD

      It appears Holder merely has to sign this since every indication thus far says he is in total agreement with its content. I wonder how many MSM folks would argue against such an announcement.

  • Margot_65293

    You nailed it as usual, Evan!

  • Tompion Epiphany

    While I am sure Mr. Sayet means well and fully believes his rhetoric, I believe he is forgetting we on the left are all about love and inclusiveness and the vision of utopia we have is attainable, if only people would stop pointing out the "logical fallacies" and hanging on "the truth" as if it were some gospel.

    I would gladly point out some of the hate speech from the right but can't seem to find any quotes at this moment. If you would just shut up and trust us and let us go about our business of taking care of you, you would see we could make it all better and stop all these rich white men from running our lives. After all, even with budget shortfalls we still manage to get social security checks out there and the government is running smoother than it ever has.

    Power to the people.

  • vladimirval

    This is the best analysis of the desperate attacks on anyone not ready to march down the path of big government and socialism. As always Evan hits the nail square on the head. Eloquent and factual Evan tells it like it is leaving us with the after thought that the liberal left’s points can be very easily ripped to shreds and discarded like yesterday’s fish. I think he has put an end to this debate and we can go on with the task at hand which is to correct the despicable actions by Obama, his Czars, and the Pelosi/Reid led congress.

  • PAthena

    The use of the term "liberal" to refer to socialists and communists is a mistake, since socialists (Many) and communists are not liberal at all. About what happened to the Democratic Party see "The Shadow Party," with the role of George Soros in buying it up. The present Democratic Party is not the party of FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, or lYndon Johnson.

    • Liberty Clinger

      “To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived… With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel. This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism — not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism — that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice.." Barry Loberfeld
      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Socia

    • Guest

      You are certainly correct about the misuse of the word "liberal" to describe those who wish to destroy all real liberty, but an even worse example of Newspeak is the term 'progressive'. What is progressive about turning back the clock to implement a doctrine – socialism-communism-fascism – that was discredited by the year 1900?

  • Questions

    Everyone is capable of hate — and realizes that capability at some point in the course of a day. Show me a single person, Right or Left, who doesn't express hatred at someone or something, and I'll show you an odd duck. The idea that "the Left" is uniquely guilty is absurd, except to Evan Sayet.

    • Liberty Clinger

      Hatred of good is evil. Hatred of evil is good. Self-serving, power-hungry leftists hate good, and that is the source of their evil. Most Americans hate evil, and that one of the sources of their goodness.

      "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." Proverbs

  • A.W. Lyons

    Just excellent.

  • Liberty Clinger

    “Objectivity is undesirable.” Howard Zinn 

    Howard Zinn is O'Brian. 

    O'Brian: "You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident… I tell you Winston that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else; not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth." George Orwell – 1984 

    Winston Smith: "The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind; surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false… There was truth and there was untruth; and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad."  George Orwell – 1984

  • Liberty Clinger

    “Objectivity is undesirable.” Howard Zinn 

    Objectivity (truth) is undesirable, so the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink is desirable. 

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously (the lie and the truth), and accepting both of them (Insanity)… with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth… The heresy of heresies was common sense."  George Orwell – 1984 

    Common sense means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously (the truth and the lie), and accepting only the truth (Sanity)… with the truth always one leap ahead of the lie. 

  • Randy's girl

    Great piece, Evan… Nothing galls me more than how smug they are in their moral superiority.

  • Hannibarca

    Yes the Party Collective does see us as inferior: thus it does not matter the color of the uniform or the caliber of the gun ,it always ends the same with bodies piled high, if these monsters ever achieve full power.

  • http://goldsteapartyradio.com arnold gold

    evan, glad you're on MY Side!!! it's WE smart folks that know the ENTIRETY of the mentality of the left is manipulative and born out of and emersed in BAD FAITH!! it is, of course, why the points you articulate in your article form the back-bone of our show, TEA PARTY RADIO heard on Saturdays, 6-7 pm (PST), on KRLA 870 am, on-line at http://www.krla870.com PROUD and honored to have you as one of our "Tea Party Radio Regulars!"!

  • Guest

    Seems odd a rant on objectivity includes no citations or sources for any of the quotes, allegations or conclusions. For example what is the source for the Zinn qoute? He may have said it but if you Google it one of the earliest citation that comes back is a Front Page review his book where the quote simply says "Zinn once remarked". So where was the remark once made? when? in what context?

    • USMCSniper

      Defending Zinn? Surely you jest!

      • Guest

        Why assume I defend Zinn? I am not a fan of his. But my point is if the articles premise is objectivity, quote:" When objective facts are “undesirable” they cannot allow an opportunity for those facts to be heard and considered." Presumably the article is based on objective fact then. The Zinn quote is does not appear to be verifiable and therefore not an objective fact. Its not defending Zinn its simply trying to understand why an article on facts does not appear to have any. For example none of the second to last paragraphs have any actual examples or references. So while no bones the articles opinions, it seems funny it is supposedly rails against a lack "truth" and "facts" presenting simple minded cliches instead of either. Just saying the writer seems no different than his target.

  • OneWayorTheHwyrs

    Keep on Writing and fighting the good fight!

  • WarPossum101

    The question is, which is best: government based on practicality or government based on morality. I think we usually try to strike a balance between what's "good" and what's possible. The extremist left, as I think this article points out, is not interested in limits – it wants the "good" at all costs. If your goal is to be "good," then obviously anyone who opposes you must be "evil."

    An obvious example is closing Gitmo. The morally good thing to do is, close Gitmo, try the inmates under the U.S. criminal justice system, and if they're found innocent, let them go. Other considerations (such as whether these people will return to the jihad and kill more Americans) are of no concern. We must remain righteous, even if we suffer for it. The leftist is always ready, in theory, to suffer – and to make others suffer – for his righteousness.

    And the leftist has us in a nasty little wrestling hold that it's hard to escape from. His refusal to compromise morally makes the people who actually have to handle real-world situations look wishy-washy, a bit sleazy, a bit sneaky, not quite honest. or even outright hypocritical. The leftist picks beloved American principles – "give me your tired, your poor, etc." – and insists that HE is all for living up to the letter AND the spirit, while anyone who fudges is a rank hypocrite.

    It's difficult to tell whether the left really believes its own good vs. evil narrative or is just using it to acquire power.

    • Guest

      Cant this be said the same around? That some people (right, left and libertarian) believe there are genuine legal questions about the constitutionality of the Gitmo set up? And if so should they not be answerable to the available political remediation of judicial review or action by the Executive or Congress. The desire to ignore the law then would be seen as being for higher good (we should ignore the law for our safety) and therefore a moral stance and not the practical reality of living in a democracy with the rule of law. Because with out democracy or the rule of law seems you like just have tyranny.

  • Donla

    Why, hatred on the left? It's hard to be any other way when you have to defend your support for slaughtering 50 million helpless innocent babies -in, and now with Obama, (a woman's intent) out of the womb.

  • http://www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/CA/7/ Shala Linebaugh

    Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
    Watch the Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o71pAJMhQLo

  • Greg

    Ummm…where is Evan getting his information from in regards to "failed" science of embryonic stem cells? This is one of the most promising developments this century and is still evolving…hence the need for more research. To call it a failed science is not only a bit premature, it's absurd.