The Left Believes Immorality is Moral

Interesting bit over at Ace of Spades:

…The left does indeed engage in moral relativism– selectively.

For the enemies of America or Israel, or for the enemy of civilized, orderly society (say, the common street-murderer), the left does indeed engage in this analysis of moral relativism.

But what about for America itself, or Israel, or the family murdered by a “desperate” and poor lifelong criminal?

Does the left ever engage in the same moral relativistic thinking and say, of America, Israel, or a community outraged by murder, “Well, these people were scared. They felt as if they had no choice. Their anger can be excused and understood, and justified to some extent, because of the grievances they felt they had against their enemies.”

No– they do not. This moral relativism, the excusing and justifying of evil acts, is a one-way street only, only serving to apologize for people who kill Americans (or Westerners; the Israelis in this case are taken to be White Westerners)…

This has a lot of truth in it, but I don’t think it goes far enough.  For us on the right, we like to have a mindset that people are reasonably decent and want what is best – and to a certain extent, this mindset is true but for the left “what is best” is immoral. Until we understand that what the left wants is flat wrong in the sense of being immoral, we won’t really be able to get atop them and prevent their actions.

Whenever you see a Republican office holder working with some Democrat and you get all blood-boiling about the GOPer going all RINO (as, say, Representative Ryan has in his working with Representative Gutierrez on immigration: Ryan’s reward for working across the aisle: “It is almost as though they despise and hate all of our children”, from Gutierrez in reference to Ryan’s fellow Republicans), understand that the Republican’s failure isn’t that he’s a RINO, but that he hasn’t grasped the fact that his Democrat counter-part wants an immoral outcome to the issue. You and I want justice and mercy – in regards to the illegals, this means that some of us are ok with some sort of amnesty, all of us wanting to secure the border so that we don’t further reward corrupt governments, criminal gangs and greedy employers, that we want a good and decent solution. Gutierrez, and the rest on the left, don’t want that.  They want what is wrong – they want the corrupt governments, criminal gangs and greedy employers to keep profiting off this human misery; they want the borders open so ever more waves of illegals will come across; they want the American taxpayers to foot an ever larger bill for these people; they want a Third World dependent class to provide votes and domestic servants.  Go ahead and try to point out that large numbers of these illegals are essentially being treated as slaves and horribly abused in transit and once in the United States and they simply won’t care – but they’ll call you a racist for wanting serious efforts to bring mercy and justice to the situation.

So it goes with all issues.  On some the left will still pretend to want something akin to morality in their outcome, but that is getting rather thin and ever more discarded (remember when the liberals wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”? – now they are pretty much in favor of round-the-clock federally funded abortion on demand and are just an ace away from agreeing with the advanced thinkers that abortion should be available for some months after birth). If you really look at it closely, what the liberals want is always something that is wrong – not just wrong in a practical sense, but wrong morally. Education – we know what needs to be done and where we’ve managed to claw out of the liberals a bit of rationality, the reforms work.  But liberals don’t want reformed education – they want kids to be ill-educated and thus easily controlled and they want the system to be bloated with layers of bureaucrats who will then give time and money to support liberal political efforts. Crime – we know what needs to be done to control it, but liberals don’t want that…they don’t want poor neighborhoods filled with minorities to be properly policed; they want crime running rampant in those neighborhoods because that works to their advantage in terms of political power (high crime areas tend to have beaten down people who have bigger worries than which nitwit is President – if, indeed, much voting actually happens; I have my doubts – but as GOPers don’t campaign in such areas and criminals rule the streets, who can say if anyone actually votes? Or that the votes are accurately counted?). The War on Islamism – we know what to do; kill them until they are all dead or taken.  But the left doesn’t want such a thing. They want the Islamists running loose because to stop them would require a moral understanding that those hayseed morons clinging to the guns and the Bible are morally superior to those firing rockets into Israel; they’d rather war and slaughter go on forever in the Muslim world than admit such a thing.

I think it might be in our best long term interests to just start calling them out on it all.  When we debate the left on, say, an issue like Gaza just start saying the truth: “you guys simply want Hamas to win”. They’ll deny it, but its the truth – and if we keep stating the immoral outcome they desire, we’ll at least make them squirm as they try to dodge out of the problem…and that can help us in the project of educating a majority of Americans into understanding that the left is opposed to the basic desires of the American people. Don’t agree that they want good education for our children: they don’t. They want bad education as that suits their desires – call them out on it, repeatedly. “Mr. President, you just want bad education”. Again and again and again. If he tries to say “I want good education”, then keep pointing out that his programs and policies ensure bad education – and are so demonstrably for bad education that it must be his desire that the kids be badly educated. Don’t agree that they want a solution to the immigration problem – announce that their whole plan is to ensure that criminal gangs on the border can continue to rob, rape and murder the illegals. Say it – on TV: “the President’s plan is that poor, Central American kids be abused by criminal gangs”. The only way he can get out of it is by insisting on border security – but he can’t, because his plan is to have a pool of poor, uneducated, Third World dependents to vote Democrat and provide servants for the Ruling Class. Stop dancing around this – and stop assuming that people who are, for instance, ok with late-term abortions and want federal funds for Planned Parenthood are in any way, shape or form moral.

After all, by the time you’re ok with late-term abortions, good people, you’re only half a step away from throwing living babies into the fire to supplicate Moloch. Now, the people on the left are free to believe their immorality is a good thing – that is all fair in a democratic republic. But we know their immorality is wrong, and we know – far more importantly – that at least 70% of the American people agree on basic morality. Its just that 20-25% have been suckered by the left into believing that the left’s immorality is moral – and the suckering has been successful because we, too, have gone along with the con-job. Stop going along with it. Its not like someone has to assert specifically Catholic or orthodox Jewish morality – just assert basic morality; Natural Law, as it is called. The essentials – don’t lie, don’t steal, treat others as you would like to be treated. That kind of stuff – and then point out that the left is opposed to this.

They lie all the time; they like to lie – its fun and profitable!  They get a kick out of it when they can sucker people (as, for instance, they are trying to sucker the people of Georgia into believing that Nunn is a Georgian). When they pull off a successful lie they preen themselves over it. They are actively engaged in stealing on a massive scale.  Bill Clinton got $48 million in speaking fees while his wife was Secretary of State – he got it from people bribing him (and thus Hillary) for access in case Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20th, 2017.  They are happy about this kind of stuff.  They think it good!  They want themselves to be treated as privileged elites while the rest of us are serfs.  For you and me a 401K, for them a huge government pension. They are ok with murder; in fact, if you murder the right sort of people (police officers, Israelis, etc) then they’ll laud you as a hero. They love injustice. Nothing makes them happier than to see a person defined as the enemy (say, a white male) hauled over the coals and losing his job and perhaps getting jail time even though he broke no laws, or there is no proof of the lawbreaking.   They love spying; they love the anonymous denunciation; they love to suppress free speech; they hate free exercise of religion; they hate independent producers of goods; they hate an armed population.

All I’m saying here is that we need to open our eyes to what is going on and then start fearlessly stating the truth.  It can restore our nation – but even if it doesn’t, better to go down shouting the truth than to go down quietly agreeing with the liars.




12 thoughts on “The Left Believes Immorality is Moral

  1. Retired Spook August 2, 2014 / 11:24 am

    I suspect most who follow politics and societal change at the national level have heard or read about the movement for an Article V convention of the states for the purpose of amending the Constitution. I also suspect very few have heard or read about the process of nullification at the state level. I admit I had not until my wife and I attended a day-long KrisAnne Hall “Roots of Liberty” seminar recently, and she spent the last hour discussing an Article V convention vs. state nullification.

    It would be interesting for each of us to ask any Liberal with whom we’re still on speaking terms the following two questions:

    (1) Would you support states nullifying federal marijuana laws?

    (2) Would you support states nullifying federal gun control laws?

    I’m betting the results would reflect the thesis of Mark’s post.

    • M. Noonan August 2, 2014 / 9:07 pm


      There is a lot we could do that we don’t – as for me, I don’t buy this nonsense about juries only being able to rule by whatever instructions the judge gives. The judges shouldn’t even be giving instructions to the jury – the juries are supposed to rule our courts, not the judges and not the attorneys. The jury decides if a conviction will happen – based on evidence, indeed, but also based upon what the jury thinks best. That is not what happens these days, of course – there is nothing more absurd in American jurisprudence, for instance, than the jury being taken out of the court while prosecutors and defense attorneys argue motions…that is precisely the sort of thing a jury needs to hear so that they can decide, especially, if either prosecutor or defense is trying to game the trial.

      As for your questions – liberals cannot even answer them; they won’t know how. They’ll want whatever is immoral, of course. The immoral position to have on gun control is to be a resident of a carefully policed – if not also privately guarded – community while demanding that the badly policed neighborhoods be “gun free” as far as honest citizens are concerned. The gun controllers could have a leg to stand on – as they once did in popular opinion – if the poor neighborhoods were properly policed; back during the more horrific times of official racism poverty without access to welfare, the currently crime-ridden neighborhoods had vastly lower crime rates. Gun control could make some sort of sense back then – it makes no sense now; it is, in fact, an immoral position to hold as long as poor people cannot rely upon police protection (the reason they can’t is because race-hustlers created outrage over the sometimes bad police behavior in poor neighborhoods – it did happen; it still happens – and in order to buy support from the race-hustlers, the liberal elites essentially withdrew police protection from the poor neighborhoods…thus allowing the race-huslters to rule the roost).

      • sarahbloch August 3, 2014 / 6:40 pm

        Simply put Mark but you are wrong. i don’t believe the problems of urban American cities can be solved with money or declaring gun free zones. If we had the power to go back 60 years and create equal opportunity we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      • M. Noonan August 3, 2014 / 7:35 pm


        Why not actually prove me wrong – take any issue you want and give us your solution. Let us see if it is the morally correct or morally incorrect solution. Remember, though, we aren’t just going to judge it on its alleged face-value – we are going to examine it based upon its ultimate effects.

      • sarahbloch August 3, 2014 / 10:18 pm

        To understand morality, you would have to distance yourself from everything you have everything you have experienced. No one person, no group with a set of cherished beliefs has a corner on the market of what is truly moral. Equally, while those granted the power to judge others for their crimes against the greater society, have a duty to mete out justice within the boundaries of codified law, individuals do not wear this mantle of power. In the end, what individuals feel is moral or immoral is irrelevant; they are simply subjective matters.

        That said, I can only weigh in on this question like anyone else with what I believe. I choose gun control.

        I believe that anyone in the United States should be able to own any firearm they wish as long as they have the right to bear that arm as stated in the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. In that amendment I see no provision for the regulation of gun ownership by federal, states or local government. The only inference I can see from this statement is that you need to be a citizen to own a firearm. To me I interpret this is age of citizenship as 18 years. So I’ve solved the issue of gun control but you have to deal as a society with the fallout of felons, the mentally ill and anyone else 18 years of age having unrestricted access to any fully automatic weapon that can fire a projectile downrange.

      • M. Noonan August 3, 2014 / 11:03 pm

        And you came just so close – but then ran off into the immoral policy. Its a pity. But, here ya go:

        The only reason so many of us are rigid in defense of the right to bear arms is because we know Progressives like we know the backs of our hands – we know that any and all Progressive attempts to regulate firearms ownership is part and parcel with an ultimate plan to ban the private ownership of firearms. That said, the rational, moral policy towards gun ownership – which Progressives absolutely prevent us from doing – is to license and register all firearms and make ownership of anything other than a fowling piece dependent upon membership in the Militia – which is to be made up of all able-bodied citizens between the ages of 18 and 54 years of age. Of course, this would require that in the hands of the people are fully military automatic weapons, individually served anti-air missiles, anti-tank rockets, grenades, etc – pretty much anything short of aircraft, heavy artillery and armor would be in the hands of the people (and in a proper militia, the State governments would control the aircraft, heavy artillery and armor for the militias). This does not preclude a federal army – but the majority of army power should be in the hands of the militia (the Navy and Air Force are a different case; though even here I think that obsolescent Navy ships should be turned over to our coastal States for auxiliary service in war – convoy escort, coastal defense, etc – and a great deal of air power, especially things like the A-10 and helicopters should be in the control of State militia organizations). When the United States goes to war, we should instantly be able to call up ten or twenty million militia-members at need – for home defense, for incorporation in the federal army (after a period of up-training to get in line with active military skill levels)…to essentially tell the whole world that any attempt to invade the United States is a suicidal idea (and, of course, to ensure that if an American government becomes tyrannical, it is to be immediately faced with millions of armed, equipped and trained citizens ready to fight). Additionally, having a small army – I’d figure it in the 100,000 personnel range, organized in 6 divisions, with the balance of personnel being engineer and other specialist services – means that the only way our government can go to war is to get a declaration of war from Congress, because it would be impossible to, say, call up the militia and send them into a Korean War situation without such a declaration.

        So, rather than just have arms out there, the proper course of action is to ensure that the arms are ready, willing and able to do what they are for: defend the nation, insure against domestic tyranny. And being that you’d have to be in the militia to own something of this power, you’d have to be non-criminal, non-insane, of sound body – and organized in a body of fellow militia members; vastly less likely in such a situation that any arms held by the people would be used for any illegal purpose…and if the mean streets of, say, Chicago had 10,000 militia members armed with M-16’s, I doubt the criminals would be as frisky as they are these days.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) August 3, 2014 / 7:12 pm

        If we had the power to go back 60 years and create equal opportunity


      • M. Noonan August 3, 2014 / 7:33 pm

        I’m with you, JR – my guess is that she means that if black people in 1953 had the same opportunities as white people then all would be well. Thing is, that was pretty much the case – as is proved by Jackie Robinson in sports, both General Davis’ (father and son) in the military, Thurgood Marshall in law, etc, etc, etc. There was racism, of course – but by mid-20th century, it kept no enterprising African-American down…and as year after year went by, it became less and less an obstacle…until, just recently (or, so I’ve heard) we even managed to elect a black President.

      • sarahbloch August 3, 2014 / 10:31 pm

        There’s a bigger question here. Since there is no future there is only a now whether it is for you, your children or their children, is what you want now more important than the fluid dynamic change that keeps a nation state viable?

      • Amazona August 4, 2014 / 10:36 am

        “…there is no future there is only a now..”

        Wow, man. Heav-eeeee. Dude, like that is so, like, you know, PROFOUND !!!! I think I saw that on a bumper sticker on a flowered VW van at a Dead concert.


        “No one person, no group with a set of cherished beliefs has a corner on the market of what is truly moral. ”

        Nope. Don’t know who says they should. But there are basic beliefs in basic morality that have come down through the ages. The biggest and most powerful is that you protect and defend your young. Even in cultures in which men impregnated women and then left them to fend for themselves, the women fought to protect and defend their children, and other children. It is and always has been the most primal and universal of all moralities, extending into the animal kingdom. I don’t know if reptiles defend their young, but I do know mammals do. I’ve seen tiny birds ferociously trying to fend off larger predators trying to raid their nests and kill their babies. I adopted a Hurricane Katrina rescue cat who was found nursing six kittens, and the vet in Colorado discovered that three of them were three weeks older than the others—-she took in, fed, and protected helpless babies whose own mother was not there.

        Yet some humans not only do not protect their young, but slaughter their own offspring—-and many find this noble, fight for the “right” to do so, honor those who do the killing, celebrate the act, and congratulate those who violate the most integral and essential moral edict there is or ever has been, in any society, in any culture, in any time, in any nation. Yes, there have always been females (not worthy of the word “woman”) who would kill off their own babies, but they were quite rightly scorned. It was acknowledged as a shameful act, an inhuman and selfish act, the most immoral of all acts. Now there are those who not only support this bizarre turnabout of the most essential and important of moralities, the one that assures the propagation of a species, they fight to make it socially acceptable, to remove the stigma of infanticide, to give it acceptance and even respectability. It is inexplicable, yet a sign of our times.

        There is an effort to denigrate respect for the lives of the most innocent and helpless among us, often from people who preen in their admiration of what they DO consider “moral”—–the taking of the property of the productive to give to the unproductive, the destruction of the rule of law, the erosion of the foundations of our great nation, contempt for faith and people of faith, undermining the unity of the family. None of these values was determined by any “…one person..” or “…. group with a set of cherished beliefs…”—–phrases used to try to discredit the validity of the beliefs. Civilization is built on the core of the family unit, on belief in a greater power, on the unity of the tribe, on the dignity of self-reliance, as well as on the protection of the helpless and defense of our offspring. When we live in a society in which there are large groups openly and actively trying to overturn each and every one of the basic building blocks of civilization itself we have to pay attention and wonder at their motives.

        Polysyllabic treatises that sound like they come from college freshmen who have just discovered existential angst and are determined to educate everyone else do nothing to cover up the rot, they just spread a lot of words around over it.

        “…you have to deal as a society with the fallout of felons, the mentally ill and anyone else 18 years of age having unrestricted access to any fully automatic weapon that can fire a projectile downrange. ”

        Last first—-we already restrict “access to any fully automatic weapon that can fire a projectile downrange”. Check it out. Can’t have unrestricted access to any fully automatic weapon that fires a projectile uprange, neither.

        We used to house the seriously mentally ill, and force treatment on people whose illness kept them from admitting they were ill. Then someone said “Oh, those poor poor people, kept locked up like that. They should be FREEEEEEE !!!!” and these helpless sick people were dumped out on the street. I saw it happen. I lived in Capitol Hill in Denver, an area of grand old houses which had been turned into apartments, with fringes of older houses and old hotels, and I saw them filled with frightened, bewildered, mentally ill people who could not take care of themselves. They were immediately targets of predators, who took the money the feel-gooders thought would let them provide for themselves, and they were hungry, scared, often on the streets. It became politically incorrect to institutionalize these people. We still do not deal well with mental illness because we resist the idea that some people simply should not be out on the street. We are more intent on protecting “privacy” than on protecting our citizens, so mental health records are hard if not impossible to access.

    • sarahbloch August 3, 2014 / 6:37 pm

      (1) Yes.
      (2) Yes.

  2. Retired Spook August 2, 2014 / 11:44 am

    …The left does indeed engage in moral relativism– selectively.

    The same goes for moral outrage.

Comments are closed.