“The problem with Progressives…” Now there is a sentence without end, there is no stemming the self-righteous viciousness they produce. I wouldn’t mind Progressives so much if they weren’t so intolerant and self-righteous, constantly trying to force their faith down the unbeliever’s throat. The state religion of Progressivism demands submission to their articles of faith without demure.
Progressivism is a fundamentalist faith construct. The traditional Christian faith can be defended on reasonable grounds, that is why we have a discipline called apologetics. Fundamentalist Christians on the other hand don’t have a lot of time for apologetics; it is difficult and it appears to them to be using the arguments and methods of the world.
As a result Christian fundamentalists proclaim what they hold to be the truth and dismiss their opponents as wicked people lost in darkness. Progressives, Christian and secular, operate on pretty much the same basis. Attempt to present an alternative point of view to their faith construct and almost immediately the response is cast in moral terms, not rational ones.
Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, deliberately described those who oppose homosexual marriage as ‘bigots.’ Let us give him credit for an unusual instance of honesty, this is what he does think of those who differ from him. There was no attempt to understand and engage with those who wish to defend traditional morality, instead we are automatically dismissed as people who are intolerantly devoted to our own point of view and blind to any other.
Likewise Gordon Brown, whilst Prime Minister, described an elderly lady who questioned him about immigration as a “Bigoted old woman.” That this was an unguarded slip in the heat of the moment actually reinforces the argument, Progressives genuinely think that those who differ from them are morally beyond the pale. We are heretics.
One description for this automatic response is the Freudian term “projection.” Psychological projection happens when someone who is in denial of their own attributes or thoughts ascribes them to others. The impulses are still judged unacceptable but they belong to someone else, not you. As a result you no longer feel threatened and can maintain your self-esteem by ignoring an objectionable aspect of yourself.
In an attempt to pose as a tribune of the people Labour MP Stephen Pound indulged in a poll on BBC radio’s Today programme a few years ago. The plan was for the public to choose the subject of a private member’s bill which Pound would present to Parliament. The 10,000 plus respondents eventually chose a bill giving householders the right to use any means to resist criminal invaders of their homes. Pound responded with “The people have spoken, the bastards.” Pound did not present the bill.
It is not only Progressive leaders who automatically respond with moral abuse. We are all too familiar with the cries of “Fascist” as rank and file Progressives attempt to deny the free speech of any who disagree with them. Resist relentless homosexual propaganda and you are a “homophobe.” Warn of the dangers of radical Islamists in British cities and you are an “Islamophobe.” The unquestioned assumption is that to question one of the basic Progressive articles of faith is to be mentally ill.
Those who reject anthropogenic global warming are termed “deniers,” with its inevitable connotation of Holocaust denial. Whilst some who reject AGW give the impression they get their information via radio signals in their dental fillings it is doubtful that very many think that the Nazis got a raw deal at the Nuremburg trials.
Reject the pervasive multicultural dogma as being divisive and harmful to immigrants, particularly women, and you will automatically be denounced as a racist. Such kneejerk smears serve only to intimidate and clamp down on rational debate. This is a sign of Progressive fear, they know their dogmas do not withstand rational scrutiny.
As well as being a psychological ploy this abusive language is also a cultural tactic. Herbert Marcuse devised the concept of “repressive tolerance.” He argued that tolerance was good only if non-dominant (Progressive) ideas were allowed to flourish and those non-dominant ideas could only flourish if dominant (Traditional) ideas were shut down. A new kind of tolerance was needed: tolerance of the Progressive, meaning cultural and political subversion and revolutionary violence; combined with intolerance of existing traditional institutions, and any hint of opposition to Progressivism.
Homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted, bastard – totalitarian Progressives cannot even imagine the concept of ‘hate speech’ against traditional Christians because we always deserve it. We are the alternative faith which stands as a roadblock in the way of their supremacy.