Don't Hate The Haters. . . Or Else

Let’s play a game that often exposed flaws in an argument. I’m going to present an article from a typically liberal source (The Economist), but I’m going to stick “Hitler” in place of the people they are defending to show that they would not be making the same argument if the subject was someone they didn’t like. In other words, while they present this as a series of general principles, these are not principles, they are excuses which they would only use to defend some people. Inconsistency is evidence of false logic and bias.

---------------------

Title: Why Mr. Churchill is a problem, not a solution

Winston Churchill, leader of the anti-Nazi Party, is on trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Nazis. But when he appeared before judges, this champion of free speech declined to speak.

The court heard some of Mr. Churchill’s greatest hits: “Mein Kampf is the Bible of a religion that intends to eliminate others”; “Nazism wants to control, subdue and is out for the destruction of our Western civilization”; Mein Kampf stripped of its hateful verses, “should actually have the format of a Donald Duck comic book.” The judges’ questions were comically innocent. Did Mr. Churchill really say such things? Was it in the heat of the moment? Had he received legal advice? Did he really need to refer to Donald Duck? Stubborn silence.

Notice the double implication in the phrase “comically innocent” that only a fool would make such comments and that these judges clearly have no understanding of how evil a mind like Mr. Churchill’s can be, an understanding our enlightened author clearly has.

Maybe the state should not be in the business of prosecuting politicians for their offensive views. But these are highly charged times.

Ah the enlightened leftist mind, always looking to criminalize disagreement with their views, and always willing to use alleged crises (“highly charged times”) as an excuse for circumventing what they claim to be fundamental rights. Further, notice what our enlightened author thinks should constitute thought crimes. Churchill did not call for violence, he did not preach sedition. No. He merely said something insulting about another’s beliefs. And that is enough for this enlightened author to call for his imprisonment.

* * *

Mr. Churchill’s party is only one of many anti-Nazi groups that are gaining ground in northern European countries previously known for their liberal social attitudes. . . . These parties, all with their own special characteristics, are distinct from older far-right groups. . . but a common theme is a dislike of foreigners, especially Nazis.

Right, because it can’t be the Nazi’s hateful views and intolerant ideas these people oppose, it must be about race. Clearly, Churchill just hates people who don’t look like he does. Forget that Nazism isn’t a race or ethnicity, it’s a set of beliefs.

* * *

Mr. Churchill should not be underestimated. By identifying the enemy as Nazism and not foreigners, and by casting his rhetoric in terms of freedom rather than race, he becomes harder to label as a reactionary, racist or neo-Nazi. . . He [claims to be] fighting to defend the West’s liberties; the enemy is Nazism (not Nazis, he says), which seeks, violently, to destroy them.

Again, our enlightened author assumes that Churchill is a racist, and he does so over the denials of Churchill. To make his assumption work, he further assumes that Churchill’s denials are merely a clever form of disguise. What’s more, notice how we are told separating Nazis from Nazism is a ruse. . . yet we are simultaneously told that we must separate “Nazis” from the things they do, they say, and they believe, and from the things done in their names. In other words, "don’t blame the serial killer, blame the killing. . . but if you are someone I don’t like, then I know that you are really blaming the killer even if you only talk about the killing." This is complete nonsense.

Such views chime with some American conservatives. . . Yet Americans (and Europeans) should be wary of embracing Mr. Churchill. To expose violent Nazi ideology is legitimate, even necessary; to attack Nazism and Mein Kampf is dangerous stupidity that weakens the civilization Mr. Churchill claims to defend.

This is double-double speak. First, how do you point out ideological extremism without attacking the source of that extremism, i.e. the ideology? That’s like being asked to criticize the word choice in Moby Dick and the ideology of Melville without mentioning the book or the author. Secondly, if you will recall from above (“highly charged times”), our enlightened author has already said that it should be a speech crime to point out the extremism, which he now claims is “legitimate, even necessary” to “expose.” This is gotcha logic: you may criticize, but any criticism you make will be wrong.

What should democratic parties do when lots of voters back a far-right party? At a time of recession, populism cannot just be wished away.

Historically, populism is a leftwing philosophy.

One answer is to address legitimate grievances about the scale and nature of Nazism. (In France Nicolas Sarkozy has, controversially, pinched far-right rhetoric.) Another is to use the law to curb blatant examples of hate speech.

In other words, your two best methods are to (1) start using extremist rhetoric to trick people into voting for you and then never following through with it, i.e. lie, or (2) “use the law” to stop people from saying things you don’t like. . . but only people who criticize the Nazis, as we’ve already made clear that any interference or criticism of Nazism is beyond the pale.

But the temptation for many is to isolate the extremists, perhaps with an alliance of mainstream left and right. That risks intensifying voters’ sense that politicians are not listening to them, further boosting the extremists, but it may be necessary against the most odious groups.

This is idiotic. First, our enlightened author is concerned that the center banding together might make people feel that politicians aren’t listening to them, yet he has no qualms about suggesting that the center adopt extremist rhetoric but not follow through. Which is more likely to anger voters and make them feel alienated? Secondly, this enlightened author tell us in the first sentence that banding together in the center won’t work, but then tells us that this may be necessary? Gee, taking this drug won’t help you, but it’s probably necessary that you take it.

A better, braver strategy (”brave” because the left loves heroes rather than ideas) might be to bring far-right leaders into the cabinet, exposing their ideas to reality and their personalities to the public gaze. It may make for tetchy government, but it could also moderate the extremes. So roll the dice and make Mr. Churchill foreign minister: for how long could he keep telling the world to ban Mein Kampf?

Wow! Words cannot describe how stupid this enlightened author is. “Gee, he’s evil, so let’s give him power because that will stop him!” The only way that makes sense is if you assume that Churchill doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying and that you are calling his bluff by giving him the chance to implement those policies. How deluded must this idiot be to think that Churchill doesn’t genuinely believe that Nazism is bad? And how hypocritical for this jerk to consider the above judges naive!

--------------------

Obviously, what we’re talking about Islam, not Nazism, and Mr. Churchill is Dutch politician Gert Wilders. But the parallels with Winston Churchill are much stronger than you may realize. When Western elitists were marveling at the great Adolph Hitler and Time named him Man of the Year (1938), Churchill was warning the world. . . and was seen as a lunatic for pointing out Hitler’s own words. Wilders has done the same thing, using the very words of the Koran and of Islamic leaders to point out their intent. . . and finds himself laughed at by the same chattering class whose ancestors worshipped Hitler before falling for Stalin.

What makes this article so interesting to me is the blatant hypocrisy and that the author clearly assumes that people like Wilders don’t really believe what they are saying -- not to mention that somehow he sees being opposed to Islam, a religion, as being a racist. But the article is most notable for how easily the author suggests criminalizing disagreement with his views. That’s the same attitude that gave aid and comfort to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and Mao as they silenced the troublemakers in the millions.

I guess that’s just how liberals roll.