Left Wing Privilege Part II: The Triggering

Left Wing Privilege Part II: The Triggering, Going-Postal.Net
Stay Puft Trampling Lefties

Whilst I applaud Rorschach for taking the time to write a response, I’m afraid he singularly failed to address a single one of my points. And how could he? For a start, he can’t deny it was those on the left who indulged in violence, spitting and threats at another party’s conference, that it was the left who held street parties to celebrate someone’s death, that it was a Labour conference that got security guards to drag an elderly man out of the hall and have him detained by police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, that it was the left who stayed silent on racist remarks by Diane Abbott, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Gerry Adams.

Instead, he spent a long paragraph talking about Paul Staines of Guido Fawkes and allegations about his history. I’ve got no obligation to defend Mr Staines or answer for any of the allegations about him. What is notable is that it is a prime example of how the left operate when inconvenient facts are revealed. They play the man and not the ball. So instead of dealing directly with the revelations of virulent anti-Semitism in Labour, he just focuses on the man who found the social media postings, as though that’s of relevance. The individuals concerned made the postings. No one forced them to do so. As well as being anti-Semites, they’re also incredibly stupid to have posted these comments on forums that are visible to the whole world. Anyone could have found the tweets and Facebook posts. The fact it was the Guido Fawkes website is neither here nor there.

The crux of his argument, however, is that some of the people condemning the anti-Semitism in Labour are themselves racist and that they therefore lack credibility.

And? So what? Just because some of the people mentioning it might be racist

Left Wing Privilege Part II: The Triggering, Going-Postal.Net
Lauded Left-Wing Murderer

doesn’t alter the fact that Labour is rife with anti-Semitism. Again, playing the man and not the ball. If it’s 2 o’clock, it’s still 2 o’clock whether I say it or Charles Manson says it. The fact that Charles Manson says it’s 2 o’clock doesn’t stop it being 2 o’clock. I opposed the Iraq invasion and condemn the loss of life it caused. So did the far left communist morons of Stop the War. I’m not going to change my position because these CAGE affiliated apologists for terrorism also condemned it. I have nothing in common with those idiots except that we opposed Blair’s illegal and morally wretched war. Equally, if there are racists who have condemned the anti-Semitism in Labour, I and many others also have nothing in common with them except that.

There is a delicious irony in the accusation from the left that critics are deliberately conflating Zionism with Judaism in order to make a false allegation of racism. For well over a decade now, every attempt to discuss Islamist terror and unchecked immigration has been shut down with cries of racism and Islamophobia. That card has been used again and again despite the fact that – yes – Islam is NOT a race. So when the tables are turned and the left, who genuinely believe they are in perpetuity on the side of good and everyone who doesn’t agree with them therefore is not, have racists exposed in their ranks, they panic and without any self-awareness accuse their critics of using a race card.

Left Wing Privilege Part II: The Triggering, Going-Postal.Net
Lauded Left-Wing Racist

Islam is an ideology. As an atheist, I say it is a man-made ideology. As such, it is no more deserving of special treatment or respect than the Harry Potter novels. Does that mean we should go around and randomly attack individual Muslims? No. But we have every right to question, to deconstruct and to criticise the beliefs espoused by that ideology, much like people do all the time about Christianity and other faiths.

Rorschach says that the “Muslim community is expected to condemn these attacks lest they be seen as condoning them.” Why is that an unreasonable request? How many times have we been told Islam is a religion of peace? And yet we never see any protest marches being held by Muslims condemning the Paris or Brussels or London or New York or Boston or Madrid or Bali atrocities. But we do see plenty of protest marches against the funerals of British soldiers killed in battle. We see protests outside court every time a jihadist is on trial for planning or carrying out terror attacks. It might be helpful at this point to remind Rorschach that this is Great Britain. This is not, never has been and never will be an Islamic republic. It is not unreasonable therefore for the population to demand action from a community that has chosen to live here when members of their community commit mass murder and there is no condemnation, no protest from them. We would be asking the same thing if we were hearing every day for over a decade about foiled or successful terror plots by Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews, Zoroastrians or Satanists. But we don’t. The daily existential threats to us and our way of life stem from one community and one community only and therefore, as I said before, it is completely legitimate to question, criticise and, yes, ridicule the ideology that inspires people from that community to go out and blow up hundreds of innocent people. That’s not racism.

If anything, Christians are subject to more scrutiny, jokes and satire than any other group. Not only do they not claim to be victims of racism, they also don’t descend into violence every time someone says something they don’t like. Remember Life of Brian? Remember Jerry Springer: The Opera? Remember The Book of Mormon? How many people died as a result of each of them?

None. Zero. Nada. Diane Abbott’s IQ.

Incidentally, no Jews killed anyone because they were upset over The Passion of the Christ either.

Rorschach complains that it is intellectually dishonest of anyone to call criticism of Zionism anti-Semitic. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the history of Zionism, but I will say this. The claim that the remarks of all these Labour members was about Zionism and not the Jewish people as a whole doesn’t hold water when you examine the contents of their remarks. These were not purely political statements, they were couched in language that was reminiscent of Nazi fascism. Naz Shah didn’t tweet a political opinion about settlements, she called for Israelis to be “transported” out as a “solution.” In another comment she complained “The Jews are rallying.” Other Labour members linked to conspiracy websites that blame Jews for September 11 and for ISIS. Vicki Kirby said Jews have “big noses.” Where exactly is the sober political discourse in all of this that the left keep saying these poor dears were partaking in? How is talking about Jews’ physical appearance or propagating the blood libel that they committed the September 11 attacks or calling for them to be transported to another country as a solution merely examples of criticising Zionism as a political ideology? No matter what linguistic contortions the left desperately try to deploy to defend the indefensible, the evidence is there for all to see. These people hate Jews, end of.

And besides – if they did nothing wrong, why have they been suspended? Albeit after much pressure was put on Labour to do something about it. If they’re innocent of racism, why didn’t Labour simply reject calls for suspension and expulsion and stand by their MP, councillors and activists?

Rorschach won’t get any argument from me regarding this and previous governments’ closeness to gruesome regimes like Saudi Arabia. Successive Tory, Labour, Democrat and Republican governments have done business with that odious dictatorship because of oil money. It’s shameful. And I also wouldn’t disagree on the other regimes Britain and the US have associated with – Pinochet, Libya and so forth.

But again – how is that relevant? This is not a zero-sum debate. Because the UK and US have a grim history doing business with dodgy regimes, therefore we can’t criticise anti-Semitism or Islamic jihad? In arguing this particular point, Rorschach also makes the common mistake made by the left that condemning Labour automatically means you’re a card carrying Tory supporter. Most bizarrely, he refers to Cameron and his foreign policy, his “swarm” remarks and his past visits to apartheid South Africa, all in the context of suggesting that Cameron got away with saying and doing terrible things but then has the gall to raise Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis. Maybe Rorschach should look at some of the comments posted here. I don’t think he’ll find much affection for the current Prime Minister. Again, as I said before, just because a racist or, in this case, an idiot mentions the anti-Semitism in Labour doesn’t change the fact that there’s anti-Semitism in Labour!

Left Wing Privilege Part II: The Triggering, Going-Postal.Net
Enemy of the People

Rorschach says “The idea of institutional ‘left wing privilege’ in light of this rings even more hollow” and he goes on to condemn the mass media. Perhaps he hasn’t noticed but there’s one outfit that occupies the vast majority of Britain’s media platforms and that’s the BBC. And the public have no choice but to get the BBC. You can choose to buy The Sun, you can choose to buy The Guardian. You have no choice when it comes to the BBC. If you want a TV, you have to pay the licence fee. It’s rather laughable to suggest that the British media establishment is mostly conservative when it’s a left wing organisation that has the widest reach in terms of TV and radio stations.

And since my last piece, we’ve had another example of left wing privilege when it emerged that newly elected Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, once appeared on Iranian state-funded Press TV and called moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms.” Was the left outraged? Did Lee Jasper and Diane Abbott call for his immediate resignation? Did BBC News even cover it? Of course not. As with Gerry Adams, figures on the left can say appalling things and their comrades on the left remain silent.

Lastly, perhaps the greatest irony in any attempt to claim the left are at a disadvantage in the media is the very fact that Rorschach had his response published here. It would have been nice of him to acknowledge that he was granted the platform, since it would never happen the other way. Does he think Left Foot Forward or Labour List or The Guardian would ever allow an alternate viewpoint? Of course not. But remember, it’s the evil baby eating monsters on the right who’ve permitted a left wing perspective to be posted for debate here. And Rorschach himself will have seen that amidst all the jokes and banter and general light-heartedness in the comments, when he has an actual point to raise, others will debate with him cogently and decently. That stands in stark contrast to the response any of us might get on Labour List or The Guardian or Twitter. Not only are they completely devoid of humour or the ability to laugh at themselves, they typically respond with abuse, threats, insults and ad hominem attacks instead of tackling the actual issues at hand. Just another case of #leftwingprivilege. 

Left Wing Priviliege Part One

Rorschach on Left wing privilege Part one

Stay Puft ©