Tag Archives: Rational Thought

Why do progressives make heroes out of criminals, and call the police villains?

How do Democrats respond to riots, vandalism and arson?
How do Democrats respond to riots, vandalism and arson?

OK so in this post, I’ll summarize the facts concerning the latest shooting of an “unarmed black man” by the police in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Then I have a lecture given by David Sayet at the Heritage Foundation to explain why secular leftists and Never-Trumpers are so anxious to side with convicted criminals against the police, and the law-abiding people the police protect.

This is from Julie Kelly over at American Greatness:

According to news reports, Kenosha police were responding to a 911 call related to an existing warrant on Jacob Blake for felony sexual assault, trespassing, and domestic abuse before Blake was shot on August 23.

[…]Blake allegedly broke into the bedroom of the victim, an ex-girlfriend, in the early morning of May 3 and sexually assaulted her while one of her children slept beside her. The victim told police that Blake attacks her “around twice a year when he drinks heavily,” the New York Post reported August 28. A 911 call from that same residence triggered Blake’s encounter with police, which sparked looting and rioting in Kenosha, a city located on the border of Illinois and Wisconsin, that spread to other cities across the county.

Police also confirmed that Blake had a knife in his possession; video taken during the incident supports that claim. Blake resisted arrest and ignored officers’ commands before he was shot in the back. He remains in stable condition at a Milwaukee hospital.

Some reactions of prominent Democrats:

Political leaders, celebrities, and athletes have rallied to Blake’s defense. In a video message taped at his home, Joe Biden said Blake’s shooting was another example of “systemic racism” and fretted about what Blake’s children watched unfold.

[…]Biden’s running mate spoke with Blake’s family this week. Sen. Kamala Harris said she did not think the shooting was justified.

[…]LeBron James is outraged at the Blake incident; he has referred to the serial sexual abuser as a “gentleman” and encouraged his fellow NBA players to boycott the playoffs in Blake’s honor.

[…]NFL quarterback Drew Brees taped Blake’s name on his helmet.

Blake’s father and other family members spoke at Friday’s March on Washington in honor of the 57th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Hope you’re not watching sports any more. At least don’t pay anything for it. These are not good people.

Anyway, it seems like the expectation on police is that they allow criminals to commit crimes against blacks, just in the case that the criminals are also black themselves. Because apparently black lives don’t matter if the criminal threatening those lives is also black. Only the lives of black criminals matter. We can’t ask people of every race to behave morally. That’s racist. We have to allow some criminals of certain races to break the law and not be punished.

Anyway, I thing it’s a good time to re-post this old lecture featuring Jewish comedian Evan Sayet, who walked away from the left. He has an inside view of what is going on in the heads of the Democrats who march on behalf of criminals like George Floyd, Jacob Blake, etc.


The part I want you to see (full transcript):

The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

[…]What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with–none of the religions, none of the philos­ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government–have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they’re convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov­erty, crime, and injustice must be found–can only be found–in the attempt to be right.

If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight. If we didn’t fight, of course we wouldn’t go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It’s a utopian vision, and all that’s required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi­dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency–all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

[…]What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn’t right and to prove that wrong isn’t wrong.

[…]What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a “cult of indiscriminateness.” The way the elite does this is by teaching our children, start­ing with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry… the only way to eliminate bigot­ry is to eliminate rational thought.

There’s a brilliant book out there called The Clos­ing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recog­nition, that they’d been raised to believe that indis­criminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

[…]Since nothing can deemed good, nothing can be deemed evil. That which society does recognize as good must be the beneficiary of some sort of prejudice. That which society recognizes as evil must be the victim of that prejudice. So, again, the mindless foot soldier will invariably side with whatever policy, mindlessly accept whatever policy seeks to tear down what is good… and elevate what is evil until everything meets in the middle and there is nothing left to fight about.

There’s a 10-year-anniversary redo of it here:

The first lecture was the most popular lecture ever given at Heritage Foundation, my favorite think tank. And it changed my life. The second lecture was even meaner, and had some up to date material.

Stephanie Gray totally embarasses pro-abortion university professor in debate

This clip made me laugh out loud.

I wish they had taped the whole thing.

I was reading Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society” on the weekend, and he says that left-wing intellectuals adopt their views not because of evidence or because of the desire for good results, but because of their need to be celebrated and lauded by their colleagues for having the “right” ideas. In short, what people learn at the university (in non-experimental/non-engineering fields) is to spout the same opinions as their professors. The professors find no value in exposing their charges to opposing views, because their goal is not to make them think but to make them conform. When left-wing professors like Christina Romer are actually given control of something in the real world, they fail, and then they must retreat back to Berkeley to teach – because they’ve never learned to think critically, or to debate their ideas with their opponents using actual evidence.

What you see in the video is the result of this educational methodology. This man has likely never been exposed to pro-life views in his entire academic career. All of his professors agreed on abortion and taught him their views. All the professors he has ever known agreed with those same views. All the students he has taught, having paid their money up front and desiring good grades, agreed with his views. Stephanie is probably the first person in his entire academic career who ever stood up to him. This is the problem with people on the secular left. They can’t even define the positions of their opponents without resorting to lies, caricatures or ad hominems. They’ve never read any academic work by their opponents – they may even deny that such work exists. And they certainly don’t know anyone personally who disagrees with them. They find it difficult to even stand still long enough to listen to anyone who has a different view.

Last week I wrote about the teacher who hadn’t published any recent experimental science publications, who nevertheless wanted to grade students in her class down just for offering scientific evidence that disagreed with her prior religious commitment to materialism. That’s standard in the university (in non-experimental, non-engineering fields). Students are expected to repeat the professor’s ideology, and then get an A. That what students are paying for – to imitate the action of the parrot. This is where abortion, global warming, same-sex marriage, Marxism, the multiverse and directed panspermia came from. It’s not something they’ve thought through – they just believe it. You can even have 25 year-old students leading the effort to publish IPCC reports for the U.N. – as long as the student has the gift of parroting, then she is qualified to guide the economic decisions of nations.

I’m sure that Stephanie Gray would be graded down in the professor’s class for disagreeing with him. Assuming she could be admitted to the university at all with her scandalous views. Pro-lifers are regularly banned from forming clubs on university campuses. Lectures by pro-lifers are regularly shut down by violent pro-abortion protesters. Debates featuring pro-life scholars like Stephanie are regularly shut down by violent pro-abortion protesters. And on some particularly close-minded, fascistic campuses like Carleton University, pro-life debaters are arrested by policemen armed with firearms.

That’s liberal tolerance. That’s the open-minded freedom of inquiry of the secular left.

Related posts