There has always been a malicious, vengeful streak in sections of the compassionate new left. Consider how they have always boasted about ‘hating the Tories’, as if hatred is an emotion to be proud of. The far left always talk of ‘smashing’ or ‘fighting’ things, whether it be capitalism, racism or the system. The rhetoric of caring and combat paradoxically go hand-in-hand. As Albert Camus observed in his attack on Sartre in his 1951 L’Homme révolté, the more someone professes to care about humanity, the more they tend to dislike people as human beings.
It’s not even the “new” Left. It’s the way the Left has always been. Including their purloining of the word “liberal” to attempt to fool people into thinking they actually are. And I don’t “hate” Leftists, because I’ve never found hate to be a productive emotion. I simply oppose them and their works with every fiber of my being.
If I ever get around to writing my book about the projection of the Left, this would be a chapter in it.
You don’t think there are plenty of examples of conservatives “hating the leftards”? You don’t think there are plenty of examples of conservatives “smashing” or “fighting” things like communism, socialism, Islam etc? I’ve seen plenty of hate expressed towards non-conservatives by conservatives, though often they also claim that when they want to see people who have other perspectives on how the world should be dead that they’re not basing their advocacy of violence on “hate”.
The left and the conservative right, two sides of the same coin.
Can you provide some actual examples? Compare, for example, the massive peaceful Tea Party rallies, which left the venues cleaner than they found them, to Antifa, and Occupy Wall Street, with the trashing, police-car pooping, window smashing and rape tents.
Try Googling “hate the left” or similar.
It’s claimed that Churchill once said: ‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’, now whether the quote is his or not, most would accept that there’s some truth to it, the left have the idealistic (often foolishness) of the young because a higher proportion of them are young, so expect many to have the faults of the young, conservatives have more of the faults of the old.
Where is the violence? Most violent hatred of the Left comes from other factions of the Left, like Nazis versus Stalinists, or Stalinists versus Trots.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/
I suspect that you’ll want to attribute any violence by leftists to “the left” as a whole, while at the same time attributing any violence committed by someone on the right as not representative of your version of the right.
My “version” of “the right” is someone who believes in individualism, classical liberal values, and the US Constitution. There is certainly nothing “right wing” about Nazis, or the KKK. Surely you wouldn’t claim those are traits of the Left?
My version of the right promotes individuality, personal responsibility, personal freedom, economic freedom and minimal government. Ideological positions many Republicans would not agree with on many issues. How often do we see Republicans speaking out for government investment and control over spaceflight, against freedoms around drug use, laws for restrictions on marriage – how many on the US “right” would support other peoples freedom to enter into the polygamous form of marriage Mormon seek to practice? You and Bilwick perhaps might be accepting of people having such freedom, but such social freedoms are often seen as leftist policies by the conservative “right”.
There are many other examples of the mainstream “right” in the US opposing social freedoms.
“Ideological positions many Republicans would not agree with on many issues.”
Yes, exactly.
You may not have noticed, but the American right increasingly see the Republicans as just another branch of the Democrats.
On the subject of various peoples versions of right and left, commenters Bob-1 and Godzilla are, if I recall correctly, self identifying as left and I think likely are representative of the mainstream left, I doubt that they advocate the violence that you wish to link to the left, and I’m betting that they don’t consider the advocates of violence that consider themselves to be leftists as representative of their version of the left – just as you don’t think those advocating violence who consider themselves to be of the right to be representative of what you think is the genuine right.
I’m not saying that everyone on the Left is violent, I’m saying that violence does seem often to be the first resort of Leftists, and that their lecturing us about “hate” and being “violent” is psychological projection.
The left murdered a hundred million or more in the last century alone. So, yes, I consider violence to be a defining feature of the left.
Heck, pretty much every time I post on a ‘Universal Basic Income’ thread that the remaining productive people in an automated economy really aren’t going to be eager to work to pay for the unproductive to sit around at home all day doing nothing, I get a lefty saying “well, we’ll just murder them if they don’t.”
Modern Leftism is authoritarian to the core, and cannot be imposed without violence. The non-violent, voluntaristic leftists are the exception, not the rule.
Yes, that’s the point. Marxism and socialism (including national socialism) are so inimical to human nature that they cannot long be sustained without finally resorting to force and violence.
The problem with your link Andrew is what they call the extreme right are not conservatives at all. Anyone taking law into their own hands is not a conservative.
“I’m saying that violence does seem often to be the first resort of Leftists”. Is it? There must be a hell of a lot of violence if that’s really the case, what are you saying, that for most leftists violence is their first resort each time they have a disagreement?? The majority of domestic disagreements in households in which there’s a leftist results in violence?? There must be billions of violent attacks by leftists in the US each year!
I didn’t say always, and I wasn’t talking about households. I was referring to political activity (though, to them, the personal is the political).
“I was referring to political activity”.
Ok, there would have been many thousands of left political rallies leading up to the last election, are you saying that there was violence at most of those events? I’m pretty sure that violence is the exception rather than the rule at left wing events.
It is much more the rule with leftists than with people like the Tea Party.
But keep in mind, Rand, that however much he often parrots their party lines and talking points. Andy is NOT part of the “liberal” Hive. (And by “liberal” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellator.”) We know he isn’t because he’s told us he isn’t/
“. . . however much he often parrots their party lines and talking points. Andy is NOT part of the “liberal” Hive.”
Perhaps you can point out where in my comments on this thread that I’ve parroted party lines or promoted leftist policies?
Gun Control … or did you forget already?
No, didn’t forget, that was actually the one thing I singled out where I’m least committed to classical liberal principles – but only to the extent of people requiring a license to own firearms that would be equivalent to a license to drive on roads and, as with the practice when they first introduced drivers licenses, to get an initial firearms license would require no more than meeting current laws around ownership, after that initial introduction of licensing anyone demonstrating competence to drive could get a drivers license, my position is anyone meeting current requirements to own a firearm and demonstrating competence in firearms safety and use should be able to get a license after that initial introduction of licensing. To a pro-gun American that probably sounds draconian, to most of the rest of the world it would sound like common sense.
So “The Nation” claims the far right has a near monopoly on political violence, yet somehow every mass shooter has been found to be either a leftist, or mentally ill (and also a leftist, but I repeat myself). And all the racist “incidents” on college campuses seem to turn out to have been hoaxes perpetrated by leftists.
That’s a mighty expansive definition of “far right” ya got there.
The greatest success of the post-WWII left was convincing Westerners that fascism is ‘far right’ rather than ‘far left’. Fascism is just another brand of authoritarian socialism. though it’s proven rather less murderous than the communist brand.
The great Bastiat called the leftists of his day “humanitarians with a guillotine.” They’ve just expanded their repertoire beyond beheading.
“My ‘version’ of ‘the right’ is someone who believes in individualism, classical liberal values, and the US Constitution. There is certainly nothing ‘right wing’ about Nazis, or the KKK. Surely you wouldn’t claim those are traits of the Left?”
Indeed; although that whole archaic terminology of “right” and “left” politically needs to be revised, if not jettisoned. As most of you–but probably not Andy–know, the terminology derived from the French parliament of the Ancien Regime, with the “right wing” being authoritarian, pro-Church-and-State, and generally opposed to individualism and reason and the whole Enlightenment package. If there’s any group today that’s “right wing” by that standard, it’s the gang we currently call “liberals” and other assorted collectivists.
And as I’ve also said before–but it bears repeating–if a label somehow corrals people like Robert LeFevre and Murray Rothbard with people like the KKK and the Nazis, that label is misleading (deliberately so, I suspect) and should be junked.
I agree that the definitions have become confused to the point of meaninglessness, A while ago I suggested that those furthest “right” should be seen as those that advocate greater economic freedom and greater social freedom, while “left” those that advocate more government control over economic and social freedoms. Often “liberals” are more right on the social freedoms scale than conservatives who’re often still a bit obsessed about poking their noises into other peoples business.
Conservatives don’t do the advocating thing.
Of course politicians attempting to represent conservatives, may advocate lots of things- like lower taxes. Or repealing Obamacare.
It doesn’t mean the conservative representatives actually do what they say they want to do.
Now this of course is also true of politicians representing Lefties.
Anyways Jonah Goldberg takes stab at defining conservative:
“Defining conservatism is actually very, very, hard. When Frank Meyer asked my old boss to define it for the seminal collection What Is Conservatism? Buckley submitted an essay titled “Notes towards an Empirical Definition of Conservatism; Reluctantly and Apologetically Given by William F. Buckley.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420055/conservatism-definition-difficult-produce
And:
“I think this is because conservatism isn’t a single thing. Indeed, as I have argued before, I think it’s a contradictory thing, a bundle of principles married to a prudential and humble appreciation of the complexity of life and the sanctity of successful human institutions.”
Now, I would ask what is “a successful human institutions” it’s quite strain to call Congress or Justice Dept as successful. In broad strokes, sure. [As compared to say N Korea]. But Red Cross, rotary clubs, churches, etc sometimes or most of time are successful.
Though corporations tend to do better [or die].
Conservative violence is the guy that shot the church shooter in Texas. If someone broke into my house to steal something I would attempt to shoot him dead. Libtards do things like attempt political violence like the Congressional softball shooter or the guy that tackled senator Paul. Pretty easy distinction to make.
I suspect that the majority of people in America who take their guns out and shoot other people to settle personal disputes are opposed to gun control, and in that context I agree with the NRA in their “it’s people that kill people” slogan, tackling the attitudes around shooting people is more important than controlling ownership.
I suspect that the majority of people in America who take their guns out and shoot other people to settle personal disputes are opposed to gun control
And I suspect that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and that such people give very little thought to the issue. Certainly drug-gang members don’t because they are indifferent to government desires to take their guns away. And they and other criminals who will get their guns regardless of the laws are the people most likely to shoot other people to settle personal disputes, despite your ignorance of America via watching too many movies and television.
I will add that your profoundly ignorant comment is deeply insulting to the vast majority of gun owners (and NRA members) in America. Not that you care, and not that they’re going to shoot you over it, even if you weren’t an ocean away.
But having said that, yes, there is a hell of a lot of violence from Leftists. Go to any Antifa rally, or Occupy Wall Street (though, fortunately, that no longer seems to be a thing, at least for now) “protest.” Please point out to me any equivalent from “the right.” At least in America. Can you point out any example in which thousands of “right wingers” (by any definition you choose) gather and scream hate-filled rhetoric, and destroy property, and injure people?
I’ll wait.
The Antifa movement has about as much to do with the US mainstream left as white supremacists have to do with the US mainstream right, so your pointing to antifa as an example of left violence is on a par with someone giving violence by white supremacists as an example of right wing violence.
Please point to me an instance of them being denounced by Democrats or “liberals,” who reserve all their ire for Trump supporters. They may not explicitly support it, but there is no evidence that they mind it. They are their brown shirts.
I’ve found comments by several Democrats condemning Antifa violence, including statements from Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders.
“Personal dispute” murder by gun is exceedingly rare. The moment of passion killing of a cheating spouse makes for good TV, but happens infrequently. Unless you want to speak of disputes over drugs, which are the mainstay of murders nationwide.
If someone broke into my house to steal something I would attempt to shoot him dead.
Someone who breaks into your house has already made the decision that his life isn’t worth more than the electronics and other trinkets he hopes to acquire. And who are you (or any of us) to disagree with that?
It’s the Progressive Left that tells us that you are required to value his life when he obviously doesn’t. (And they also imply that they value his more than they do yours by not wanting you to permit you to defend yourself.)
The issue of left vs right violence is much simpler than this discussion suggests. Violence is simply part of the spectrum of a desire to control others. While there are certainly individual exceptions it is the left that tries to control other peoples lives. When the left accuses the right of the same thing it’s in areas where the left is ignoring rights of one group for a preferred group.
The left fantasizes about the red button being their solution.
It is the left that can’t allow free speech (Trump wants to limit lying and slander but hasn’t a workable solution.) The left wants to create a new category of ‘hate’ speech which does not exist in law.
Riots and destruction (which are not protests) is a feature of the left. The right will argue about statues; the left just topples them.
Hey, I see the Kiwi is not asking relevant or useful questions again, while thinking he is doing something intelligent. For example, he posts a link to an article with this headline:
“https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/”
Geez, what’s to question in such a headline?
Have we forgotten the violent protests by Antifa (Soviet Communists, if you know your history) in Berkeley and Virginia this year? Sure, a Nazi (German Socialists, if you know your history) fought with Antifa, but I’m sure the Pols (I mean Polish) were not amused.
I know several people are trying to forget a Bernie Sanders (US Socialist Party) supporter tried to assassinate several GOP members at a baseball field, and did put one in the hospital.
Speaking of putting people in the hospital, lets not so quickly forget the attack on Rand Paul.
Wow, that’s four major violent attacks just in the US. We aren’t even talking about European leftist protests. And these were all violent enough to put people in hospital.
Maybe the Kiwi should question his sources? Nah, that would require introspection on his part.
Ok, there would have been many thousands of left political rallies leading up to the last election, are you saying that there was violence at most of those events?
There was violence at a good many of them but if you watched the livestreams, you would have seen/heard rhetoric that was hateful, bigoted, and violent. This is why the media doesn’t do stream of conscious reporting at Democrat protests. Well, that and because Democrats get violent with media who do live reporting. But most violence didn’t happen at Democrats own events, it happened at non-Democrat events where Democrats showed up to stop others from enjoying the freedoms that Democrats claim as their own.
Over the last two years, dozens of people have been hospitalized, many people beaten unconscious, hundreds assaulted, thousands of thefts, millions in property damage, hundreds of fake hate crimes, and countless acts of vandalism against people and property. I know why our media didn’t cover these organized and unorganized actions, I don’t know why the NZ media doesn’t.
I’ve found comments by several Democrats condemning Antifa violence, including statements from Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders.
This wasn’t until after all the events listed above. They didn’t even speak out against their black shirts when Portland had to cancel a parade because Democrats said they would beat people to death in the street. It took them almost two years to speak out and they never condemned OWS or BLM riots and cop assassinations.
Then we could look at the historical violence over the last 50 or even 150 years carried out by Democrats.
The actual share is higher still, as violence committed by ultraconservative Islamic supremacists isn’t included in tallies of “right-wing extremism.”
The problem with your source is that it labels anything they don’t like as right wing. Racism isn’t right/left. Anyone can be a racist. Saying all hate crimes are right wing is BS. Also, trying to say that jihad is a right wing problem is also BS. I bet violence against Christians and pro-life people wasn’t included in their study. In fact, I bet that aside from intentionally mis-categorizing incidents, they intentionally left off many examples of political violence from the left.
Democrats are like this:
There are those who engage in violence, those that directly support the violence but don’t participate, those who agree with the violence but don’t directly support it, and those who agree with the ideology of those doing the violence but don’t think that there should be violence.
The last group is the biggest but the previous 3 groups are almost a majority. They also all hold mostly the same ideology but differ on the best way to implement it. Democrats can mobilize millions in the streets, activism is a core part of their ideology. But activism is expected in the workplace and every other theatre as well. This is why we see so many government workers and teachers abusing their authority.
That socialism is so accepted that Bernie would have won the nomination if it wasn’t as rigged as any investigation into Hillary or Obama’s scandals and that there are many elected socialists at lower levels of government, should be concerning to any Democrats who thinks ANTIFA is just some small group of people who are not connected to their party. But this group is called useful idiots for a reason. The next election will see the progressive Democrats harden their grip on the party.