The actuality of Leftist morality - and that it is inversion of the true, beautiful and virtuous - is revealed by describing the double-negative reality concealed by the pseudo-positive moral 'principles' used to justify Leftist evil.
Here is the way it works:
To be a 'racist' is = not to be anti-white
To be a sexist = not to be anti-men...
You see the way it works? Leftism is oppositional, being defined as 'against' various 'evils'. Most of the Leftist 'evils' (often expressed as '-ist' or '-phobic') can accurately be described in a similar double-negative fashion:
Not to be anti-native inhabitants of a country...
Not to be opposed to biologically real, reproductively-adaptive sexuality...
Not to be anti-Christian... etc.
The double-negative formulation is a necessity for Leftism, since Leftism is indeed ultimately oppositional (opposing God and divine creation; opposing the true, beautiful and virtuous); thus its 'positive' content (i.e. what Leftists want) is protean and labile, self-contradicting and incoherent.
After all, there are an 'infinite' number of ways of opposing The Good.
To be morally excoriated by the Left, all that is required is to be against opposing the Good, in any particular respect.
Added - Double-negative denialism
For the sake of completeness, and to include two of the biggest recent double-negative global crusades. What do accusations of denialism amount to?
Climate denialism: Hatred of those people who do not regard carbon as the greatest threat to life on earth
Birdemic denialism: Terror of those who are not afraid of close proximity to human beings
Note: This idea was triggered by a post by William Wildblood, where he give a double negative definition of 'racist'.
Yes, it the same thing that René Girard explained. Leftism follows the old scapegoat mechanism in which it is claimed that destroying a scapegoat (whites, males, etc.) will produce peace in the community. See the Old Testament and the Ancient Greece, as well as lots of tribal peoples.
However, unlike the old scapegoat mechanism, leftism has to take account of two millennia of Christianity, where the victim is well considered. So the aggressor has to be pretend being al victim. So it is not that I am the aggressor that am anti-male. It is that I am a victim of male dominance and I am the victim. I am only defending myself.
So this produces a double negative, as you explained: not attacking the real victim is given a fancy name that sounds like opression (racism, sexism, etc.). Then we can be anti-racist, anti-sexist so we can attack the real victim while pretending to be victims and fight for justice.
This reminds me of something I noticed. Leftists will use expressions of their hatreds as shibboleths to identify other lefties. “!@#%! I hate (leftist hate object du jour)!” If you respond in kind, you’re good. If you stare blankly you’re the enemy and can expect to never be spoken to again..
Post a Comment