On Demonizing the Left

 

Sam Smith at the Grammys

One way to understand Andrew Coyne’s recent complaint about “demonization” of the left by the right is as a backhanded admission that, should the right go down this route the left have been crowding for so long, it would be devastating for the left.

I am reminded of Nathanial Erskine-Smith’s concern, in defending the Emergency Act, at the right raising the issue of the Nuremberg Code.

This struck me at the time, because I had never heard anyone on the right mentioning the Nuremberg Accords. Kin fact, I had never heard of the Nuremberg Code. I had to look it up. They were a code of conduct for medical experimentation, agreed upon after the Second World war, in reaction to the Nazis using prisoners in medical experiments. Those participating in the testing of experimental drugs or procedures must give informed consent.

And yes, reading the text,there was a strong case that, in mandating anti-Covid vaccines, the Canadian government was in violation of the Nuremburg Accords. People were being forced to use an experimental drug, the long-term effects of which could not possibly be known.

Thanks for the tipoff, Nate. It proves that the left is not acting out of ignorance. They know exactly what they are doing.

Coyne’s warning says the same. They know they are demonic.

Where, these days, are you likely to encounter an open endorsement of Satan? Among members of the Biden administration. Among the designers of the Target line of trans clothing. And these are people endorsed and embraced by the rest of the left. 

Who is in open rebellion against “conventional morality”? Who is burning down churches and dressing in mockery as nuns?

It is not as if they are being subtle about it.

The left is responsible for a genocide against the unborn: unrestricted abortion.

They are responsible for many deaths through their imposition of vaccine mandates. Not for the vaccine—one can accept that the rushing of the vaccine was done for the best of intentions, even if unwise or unnecessar in retrospect. But they surely killed people by imposing mandates, and they imposed mandates after it would have been clear to those in control that the vaccines did not work to prevent transmission and carried serious risks. They imposed mandates right when there was no medical justification for them, unless the intent was to kill people.

They are responsible for a growing genocide against the old, the infirm, and the mentally ill with their promotion of “medical assistance in dying,” previously known as euthanasia. They can claim consent; but that argument is flawed. The old, poor, ill and weak are, by definition, the most vulnerable among us. They can easily be pressured into giving consent; and there is much evidence this is happening. The mentally ill in particular are commonly understood not to be competent to give consent. They can now  be executed by the very families who drove them to madness. The elderly suffering dementia must only hope their children are not too eager to receive their inheritance.

The left is responsible for another, separate genocide against the poor and mentally ill too in their push for “safe supply” of addictive drugs, with no attention given to treatment or recovery. When was this a good idea? Did we ever treat alcoholism by giving out free whisky? 

While the approach might once have been defensible in theory—just conceivably--the left is doubling down even after the statistics roll in showing the spike in deaths.

They are responsible for physically mutilating and sterilizing children—the drive to “gender affirming surgery,” even behind the backs of parents. The motive can only be malice; malice against children. In no other circumstance would we consider children competent to make such life-altering decisions. 

The simple truth is that the left wants everyone—everyone else but themselves—dead. They are even open about this. They talk of people as a cancer on the planet. They will persist and push forward with this until and unless the rest of us call them out.

You don’t get more demonic than this.

Man, the Invasive Species

Weclome to my workaday world.

The pictures are clips from the ESL textbook with which I am currently teaching Saudi students. Nothing special about this particular textbook; these days, any textbook in any subject seems to include similar stuff. Supposedly, the topic is "the natural world." But the true topic is obviously how evil humans are.

This culture of death stuff, this misanthropy, generally masquerades as science; yet of course there is nothing scientific about it. It is a philosophical, or rather a religious, position, to see man as evil, and uniquely evil. Science would or could make no such judgement; it is not involved with morals. In falsifying science, this anti-humanism probably alienates many of the young who would be naturally so inclined. Conversely, it is calculated to attract the worst sorts of misanthropists to science, which seems at least as dangerous to our future. And it is quite an awkward thing to have to deal with as a guest in a foreign culture; surely it is especially troubling in an ESL context. You want to convince Middle Eastern Muslims there is a compelling need to take down Western culture? Here it is, in a nutshell. The Westerners, it is apparent, hate us all and want to destroy us.

The first clipping describes mankind as the “worst” invasive species, and responsible for most of the world's pollution. This is in a sense true, but also nonsensical. It is man who decides which species are “invasive,” i.e., both new to an area and unwanted. If men do not want men, then I guess men are invasive. QED. Otherwise, men are just following the same natural biological imperative of any other species, moving in to any new habitat that comes available. Nor is mankind the most pervasive species; not by a long shot. Insects, arachnids, and any number of micro-organisms have us beat seven ways to creation on that score. Similarly, pollution is human-defined as something humans don't want. So of course, without humans, there is no pollution. A tse-tse fly has no such concept nor concern, whatever droppings it may leave or species it may ravage. 

Yet "humans need to change many things about their lifestyle if they want to survive." Savour the logic--the human species is going to die out if it does not stop being so successful. Deus ex machina revenge from Mother Gaea must be assumed here.

The second clipping is a mock website for an ecological charity. Trying to teach the unenlighted races, often in benighted Third-world countries, who are most likely to be using an ESL text, what true charity is all about. One ought to work to save animals, “usually suffering because of humans.” Now imagine this textbook being used, as it is surely intended to be, by poor students in Africa or Asia. Experienced vets and the latest medical equipment,we read, ought to be and are being flown in to Africa to help the animals against their human oppressors—who will be only too conscious that they themselves lack medical practitioners and medical equipment. Kind of puts the Wogs in their place, doesn't it?

There is also the mandatory knock against zoos.

The final picture is unfortunately not self-explanatory. The context is this: the reader is asked to match the English names for various animals with their pictures. And one of the animals named and pictured, here right next to the Chinese mitten crab, is the human. The creature is showing what it can do on the gym floor. The message, surely, is that man is not a spiritual being, not both body and soul, not half animal and half angel, but an animal like any other, and of no greater significance.

This is obviously wildly objectionable to any Christian, Jew, Muslim, or pagan Greek, not to mention roughly the balance of the human race. What is the point of throwing this in, if the intent is not propagandistic, and controversialist?

Now, be clear that this is not a problem with one particular book. Quite the opposite: this particular book was selected largely because it was the least culturally objectionable to be found, for a Muslim audience. Most are far worse in terms of openly promoting what John Paul II called "the culture of death."