My last post started to talk about the left’s soft bigotry of low expectations and it’s share of responsibility in President Obama’s failures. I used the example of the president’s handling of Assad in Syria and how notably the left’s attitudes toward war in the middle east had changed, and more disturbingly, it’s motivation. Fast forward a year from Syria, and now the bigotry is anything but soft. We’ve seen three recent and very graphic examples of how ugly this bigotry has become.
First we saw the Ferguson riots after a black man was killed by a white police officer. One of the most telling aspects of it was how kind the press was to the protesters. A favorite phrase used was “Mostly peaceful” to describe the rioters. I’m guessing that cities under ISIS control could be classified as “mostly peaceful”, but that doesn’t mean anyone would want to live in them. And for the record, if you have to be told that some event/town is mostly peaceful, it isn’t. We also saw Chris Hayes over at MSNBC acting as an apologist when he was having rocks thrown at him by protesters.
In that link Larry O’Conner raised the good point of, “Imagine if the Tea Party acted this way how the press would respond.” Of course, that’s a ridiculous comparison because the Tea Party doesn’t act this way at their rallies. For whatever anger may be seen at their rallies, the Tea Partiers seem to engage in these extremist action of obeying the law and not trashing whatever property they come in contact with. Come to think of it, Ferguson may not be a very good example to use of left wing bigotry since leftists will excuse bad behavior at any of their protests, regardless of race. Such as the mostly peaceful Occupy Wall Street movement. And in all fairness to the protesters, I haven’t followed other stories he’s covered so I don’t know whether or not pelting Chris Hayes with rocks is a perfectly natural crowd reaction.
A better example came from a pair of editorials regarding ISIS. CNN’s James Dawes had a post and Michael Boyle wrote a guest piece in the New York Times pointing out the hazards of labeling ISIS as evil. Actually, there aren’t. I understand the argument that there is utility in understanding their motives, but aside from that their question is sheer idiocy. If they can’t say that a group that enslaves girls, crucifies people in the streets and transmits videos of beheading journalists isn’t evil they should try living among ISIS and see how long their desire for nuance lasts.
Most disturbing is a story that got sadly little press here in the US. As Mark Steyn described it,
On Friday I appeared on Michael Graham’s radio show to discuss, among other things, the appalling revelations from Rotherham, a drab town in South Yorkshire in which over the course of a decade and a half some 1,400 girls (as young as 11) were “groomed”, drugged, raped, traded and, occasionally, doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. All the while, the entire apparatus of the state, from the political class to the police to the “child protection” agencies, looked the other way – for fear of appearing “racist” or “Islamophobic”. The BBC describes the predators’ actions as “brazen“, which it certainly was. They would turn up at children’s homes, select the ones they wanted, and drive off with them:
The carrer, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed staff were reluctant to intervene in some cases for fear of being classed as “racist”.
It was so bad that the local agencies tasked with protecting children became collaborators. What may be the most sickening aspect of this story is the fact that the people supposed to protect the children willingly sacrificed them on the altar of multiculturalism rather than stand up and protect them. “Fear of being classed as racist?” How is the belief that just based on their race these people can not understand the concept that child abuse is wrong? At least the locals are finally waking up.
We’ve gotten to a point where fear of offending members of a religion that shall not be blamed has people from an ideology that claims to support our military calling a terrorist act that murdered thirteen on an army base an act of workplace violence. We’ve seen the same used to describe a woman who was beheaded also as workplace violence. Talk about your war on women! We’ve even gotten to the point where London has stopped using bomb sniffing dogs out of fear of offending the people of a certain religion that likes to murder Londoners with bombs.
Image appears via The People’s Cube
This is hardly new. A year ago I Shouted Out Who Put Tsarnaev on the Cover of Rolling Stone, When After All it Was You and Me. And this cultural suicide is probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The left’s silence here is also interesting, given the beliefs of the people committing these atrocities. I’m going to go out on a limb and take a guess as to some of their beliefs:
- The don’t support gay marriage
- For that matter, they don’t support gays’ right to live
- They’re opposed to being forced to buy birth control for their female employees
- A lot of their funding originates with that evil, non-renewable energy source, oil
- based on their treatment of humans their treatment of animals probably doesn’t follow PETA guidelines, either
Why the left’s vitriol toward conservatives and silence here? To paraphrase Han Solo, “Because Tea Partiers don’t rip people’s arms out of sockets when you criticize them.” Sadly, I don’t think the suggestion that we try a new strategy: “Let the Muslim win” is going to produce results that will make the left happy. Maybe the next time some violence of this nature happens maybe some quick-reacting conservatives can photoshop pictures of the murderers wearing Gadsen flag shirts and tweet out that they were shouting “Who’s John Galt!” as they commit their crimes. At least then the left would be able to briefly hate them.
Cross Posted from Brother Bob’s Blog