9 January 2011

Why "moderates" suck

I am increasingly inclined to believe that "moderate" should rank alongside "progressive" as a term of contempt. Reading the estimable Anna Raccoon's list of five Saturday Evening Posts Worth Reading, all by bloggers previously unknown to me, I encountered the following.

From Simon Cooke, a Tory Councillor, blogging as The View from Cullingworth:
I hold no brief for Sarah Palin's politics - although I don't share some folk's irrational and violent hatred of her - and think that the cause of liberty is held back by those like her (and sadly too many her left-wing opponents) who combine it with judgmental bigotry. But I do not see in her campaigns any incitement to violence or any corrupting of America's democratic discourse.
The opposite of judgmental is having no judgment, arsehole. Repeating the "bigotry" charge thrown at anyone who disagrees with them by US "progressives" proves that you, sir, have none.

From Syniadau, whose dream of an independent Wales I heartily support, but who lumps David Davies with Jack Straw, showing that he has not even conducted cursory research of the two men:
To me it appears that there is seam of political opinion in which politicians think they can keep pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, pandering to the anti-Muslim feeling they presume must exist in the minds of potential voters ... an impression it is all too easy to get by taking the more rabid utterings of some of the gutter press seriously. But are they simply trying to take political advantage of feelings that are already widespread, or is it their intention to stir up and spread those feelings? I find it hard to believe that politicians like these would make such inflammatory statements without having a very good idea of what they want to achieve by them.
What an utterly pointless paragraph. It is to be presumed that when politicians make political statements they believe there will be a significant number of people who agree with them. It's called democracy, arsehole.

To point out that there is a large and rapidly growing religious-ethnic group in Britain that rejects kuffār concepts like democracy, civil liberties, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, equality for women, etc., etc., is not inflammatory but a stone cold statement of undeniable fact. To deny, ignore or to seek to obfuscate it is dhimmitude.

Since the author of Syniadau obviously prefers the blissful certainties that can only come from total ignorance, let me elaborate. The term "dhimmitude" was coined by the Lebanese Christian leader Bachir Gemayel in 1982 to describe a type of response to aggressive Muslim sectarianianism. It is behaviour conditioned by fear of terrorism, consisting of submissiveness in the face of ideological and physical threats in the hope of obtaining security thereby.

Something like the Welsh and the English, I guess.

No comments:

Post a Comment