The Hypocrisy Of The Left

Someone standing next to a "Please Keep Off The Grass" sign

Everyone thinks that the Left are a bunch of hypocrites.

However, I would like to argue that the Left are not hypocrites at all. They are actually very principled indeed.

What! I hear my millions of devoted readers exclaim in horror. How can you say that? Can you not see what’s going on?! Have you lost your mind – gone mad – become a gibbering and deranged maniac – or worse … a LEFTIST!

And don’t get the three of us started on the idea that you have millions of readers.

Devoted or otherwise.

But do not panic and do not despair, oh beloved reader. Let me present to you my point -by the end of this article.

It is certainly true that they look like hypocritical miscreants but they are not. They are merely miscreants.

Yes, despite all we have seen over the last few years, I am claiming that although the Left look like hypocritical, insane, idiotic imbeciles, they are merely, insane, idiotic imbeciles.

Now I know that the last two paragraphs basically had the same point, but I thought it was such an important one, I ought to mention it twice.

First let’s look at three glaring examples of their apparent hypocrisy ( – don’t worry about my claim that they’re not hypocrites, I’ve got everything under control).

  1. There was an on camera fight in the Oval Office over border wall funding between Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, where Trump threatened to shut down the government if he didn’t get the funding he wanted. At some stage the genius that is Schumer actually lost his mind and let the following phrase escape his lips. “Elections have consequences Mr President.”

    I can’t have been the only one who was unspeakably frustrated that Trump didn’t respond to that by saying, “I’m glad you believe that Chucky. Now you and all those who believe that, will help me fully fund a border wall which is a consequence of the 2016 Presidential Election.”

    But of course the Senate Minority Leader was only referring to elections where the results went the way he wanted.

    Sheer arrogance. Unbelievable stupidity.

    But not hypocrisy.

  2. You couldn’t possibly have missed the Leftist outcry over some of Trump’s decisions regarding those seeking asylum at the border. Namely, the separating of parents and children and his use of tear gas when they tried to illegally cross the border.

    You have been told how evil this makes Trump, his administration, his supporters and everyone who has ever commented on the topic of immigration in a way that was not one hundred percent on board with letting everyone else in the world come to America and live off the taxpayers.

    The tears, the condemnations, the angst. You’re separating children from (people claiming to be) their parents! What kind of monster does that! All those poor frightened children. How can little children possibly be a threat? Ad nauseam.

    But Obama also separated families at the border and used tear gas on immigrants trying to cross into America illegally and that was not even reported, let alone wept over.

    This is how little the Leftist media think of us. Overdramatic denunciations about anything that can possibly damage their most hated enemy when it’s okay for everyone else, and they think no one will notice.

    It’s still not hypocrisy.

  3. The sickening debacle that was the process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    There was much to be repulsed by during that whole episode but I want to focus on the claim from some on the Left that you must believe all women who allege that they have been sexually abused.

    Yes, chuck away the enlightened and civilised principle of the ‘rule of law’ and return to that successful for an entirely different reason mob-rule-and-kill-anyone-weird-for-no-real-reason-apart-from-the-fact-that-you-like-killing-people system that produced thousands of years of misery and suffering.

    And did you hear their excuse – “But it’s not a legal case! It’s a job interview!”

    Each time they come up with a new and improved way of defending the indefensible, I realise once again that we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the depths of their stupidity. Because yes, for a court case we must behave like decent and enlightened human beings and not bully people just because we enjoy it, but if it’s just a job interview, then it’s perfectly reasonable to devolve into the mindless raging mob that we used to be – facepalm.

    But why is it that the Left who champion the idea of believing all women so strongly that the only evidence they require is the accusation itself, only believe women who are accusing someone they disagree with politically? If the accused is someone on the Left not only does this belief vanish from their list of principles, but they may destroy the lives of those otherwise-to-be-believed women.

    So the Left will instantly believe Christine Blasey Ford who accused Bret Kavanaugh of sexual assault, but actively slander and smear the four women who accused Bill Clinton of rape.

    I just love how one person’s credibility is based on  another person’s ideology or how they contribute to a set of circumstances. So Brett Kavanaugh gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe V Wade, therefore any accuser is clearly credible. Bill Clinton is a Democratic President, so his accuser must be a lying tramp.

    Such hypocrisy.

    I mean apparent hypocrisy.

Now before we get to why the hypocrisy is only apparent, I want to draw your attention to the differences between these three examples.

In the first example Chuck Schumer is actually correct. The idea that elections have consequence is in fact the point of the political system that we’ve set up, where voters elect representatives to do what they – to be super clear the voters, want. This is in contrast to the old dictatorship and authoritarian model, where people grabbed power and ruled others mercilessly.

So thumbs up to Chuck for defining democracy properly. Well done. Elections do have consequences. At least in theory. In practice most politicians ignore the will of the people who elected them and do whatever they – to be super clear the politicians, want.

Nothing to do with the money, of course.

The apparent hypocrisy in this example is that the principle ‘Elections have consequences’ should be applied to all elections and not only the ones that produce the results you like. Chuck has taken a principle that’s true, he has even applied it correctly to the 2018 mid-term elections, he’s just refusing to apply it to another instance, simply because it doesn’t suit his agenda.

In the second example the principle is also correct, it’s just taken totally out of context because it suits the person claiming it.

Because in this case the principle is not made in a vacuum. There are a number of points to consider and they all have to be evaluated relative to each other.

So regarding the idea of separating children from their parents everyone will agree that it’s a truly evil thing to do. If not worse. But only when looking at that principle in isolation. If we take it in light of the fact that this is not some random crime, but the actions of a government that needs to protect its borders, towards people trying to enter a country illegally, who may be using children as pawns with which to circumvent and take advantage of the system of immigration, then it becomes appropriate and necessary. There are plenty of things we don’t want to do, but in light of a greater good we do them, not because we have suddenly decided it’s a good thing to do, but because of a grown up understanding that since it will be for the greater good, even though we don’t really want to do it, it is now the correct and proper thing to do.

Like the first example, the Leftist is making use of a principle that is true – separating children from their parents is evil, but unlike the first example, is not merely choosing when to apply said principle but whether or not any explanatory context is considered.

In this case they will focus on the evil of separating families which is true when looked at in isolation, and will ignore or downplay the significance of any other points or context that would allow for a different evaluation of the circumstances.

And of course, they will do this at their own discretion, which is why you think they’re hypocrites.

The final example is the most repugnant of all. Unlike the other two examples, the principle of believing all women is not right, true, or even reasonable, but a vile and despicable way of getting rid of someone you don’t like without having to go through the usual legal and to be frank, civilised channels, simply because they wouldn’t produce the results you want.

It is important to understand why so many people accept this principle, even though it’s barking mad, and goes against common sense and the general direction of society progressing towards becoming more civilised and away from mob mentality.

Everything has a kernel of truth.

People have rightly wanted to do something to encourage women who have been victims of sexual abuse to come forward, and to offer them all the assistance and support they need. One of the ways to do this is by not dismissing their claims out of hand, even if there is no evidence for them whatsoever. Therefore, we believe women enough to provide them whatever assistance we can – otherwise why help them, but not enough to prosecute the accused at their say so.

In actuality, this means that we believe that they think they’re a victim of sexual abuse and as such we should help them, but as usual some people have misunderstood and have taken the fact that we believe women enough to help them to mean we believe that they’re right.

So the idea of believing all women has a certain aspect of truth to it, but it’s also easy to see how it can be taken a step further from believing women enough to offer assistance, to believing their claim in its entirety. Such a logical jump can easily happen when you’re not paying attention and / or have a brain the size of a peanut.

So this is an example of the Left extending a relatively good idea into a principle that is actually wicked in the extreme.

And again, only when it suits them, so that it makes the outside observer think the person doing so is a hypocrite.

The reason for pointing this out is so that we can see just how bad Leftists are and how far they will go in what looks like their hypocrisy.

In ascending order of evil:

First, they will apply a correct and true principle but only when they like the outcome and not when they don’t. The evil is in applying the principle for their benefit as opposed to applying it when … applicable.

Second, they will also misrepresent a principle by focusing on it and its ramifications while ignoring the broader context that would lead to an entirely different evaluation of the situation. And also, only doing so when it suits them.

Finally, they will create an absurd and wicked principle out of almost nothing, a principle that undermines all the progress humanity has made over the last few centuries. And once again, only doing so when it suits them.

Okay, I hear you say. Very nice. Some people apply principles when they want, some misrepresent principles whenever it suits them and others make up a principle just to get their way. And yes, each is worse than the last, but isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy!

Well yes, it does seem that way.

But here’s why it’s not hypocrisy.

There was a wonderful article written explaining the insanity of the Left. What do you mean you haven’t read it? Surely you would have realised that an article about the insanity of the Left is far more important than an article about their hypocrisy, and read it first!

Go and read it. I’ll wait.

What do you mean who wrote it and where can you find it?

I’ll summarise it or we’ll be here all day – because I know you won’t go and read it. And now you’ll say, “See, I don’t need to read the whole article when I can just read the summary. Why waste my time. In fact you should have just written the summary in the first place and not an overly long article and then you wouldn’t have needed this bit of irrelevant fantasy that only makes this even longer article – yes I’ve scrolled down to the end, either! ” But there are some things in the article that won’t appear in the summary, like that parent-child conversation joke at the beginning and a really good insult of the Left that follows. Also some boring stuff about how morality has changed and then ending off with a dire warning – yeah, just read the summary.

So the summary: The Left believe in some of the most insane and idiotic ideas ever to have been conceived. We wanted to know how this could occur in light of the fact that our faculties of critical analysis are designed to prevent the acceptance of such absurd and preposterous ideas. The following explanation was given: There is a rule – There are two ways to arrive at a conclusion for something. You can either use reason and logic or you can just choose what you want to believe and accept it uncritically. We all generally decide something on the basis of reason and logic, however, some people reserve the right to throw all that away and arrive at a conclusion based on what they want to believe when their reason and logic clashes with a belief that is more fundamental and important to them. And the more fundamental and important ideology of a Leftist is their version of morality, specifically as it pertains to equality. Therefore, once their morality comes into the picture, reason and logic leave the building.

I can hear those of you who did read the article saying, “Really! Is that what you were talking about? I did not pick that up at all. I must have completely misunderstood your point. I thought it had more to do with their cutting off their own genitalia!”

The same kind of thing is happening in cases of seeming hypocrisy – where a principle is applied or not depending on what conclusion you want to arrive at.

Because there is another rule.

The Other Rule: There Are Two Ways To Determine When To Apply A Principle To Any Given Case

Yes! It’s pretty much the same as the first rule. Please tell me you can all see where I’m going with this.

The silence is deafening.

The first way, is the sensible, logical, rational, reasonable way. We examine the situation, critically analyse it and logically determine whether or not a given principle should apply. When that’s done we should accept any conclusion it now tells us.

The second way, is to first decide what you want to conclude and then if applying the principle will prove your point to loudly proclaim that fact and pretend to be someone who has come to this conclusion in a reasonable manner by applying a principle appropriately, but if it disproves your point, to ignore it and pretend the principle doesn’t exist.

The difference is simply in the order. Either you determine when to apply a principle using reason and logic and then follow whatever conclusion it leads to, or you first decide what conclusion you want and then apply the principle if it will prove your point.

Let’s see the difference between what should have happened and what actually happened using our above examples:

  1. What should have happened was that a certain person should have looked at the principle ‘elections have consequences’ and logically determined that it applies to all elections. It’s in the phrase for goodness sake. This should have lead to support for a border wall, because that should have been the consequence of the 2016 Presidential Election. And even if you argue that the 2018 Midterm Election should lead to no support for a border wall, the 2016 Presidential Election preceded it and was more important so if you have to choose between the two, (which you only have to do because the Left went against this very principle and fought the consequence of the first election) then it stands to reason that the consequences of the more important election should be supported.

    Instead what happened was that Chuck first decided that he didn’t want a wall, and saw that if he applied the principle ‘elections have consequences’ to the latter election only, he could more easily bring about what he wanted, by claiming that’s what the people voted for.

    He didn’t think about what the principle was telling him and then act accordingly. He decided what he wanted and applied the principle to further his own agenda. And even though when considering the 2018 Midterm Election in isolation it looks like he has examined the situation and, using this principle, has concluded appropriately, the fact that he did not use it for the 2016 Presidential Election proves that he decided what he wanted to conclude first and then applied his principle selectively, in a way that would prove his point.

    Sneaky and deceptive.

    In other words, a politician.

  2. What should have happened was that those making a mountain out of a molehill should have looked at the principle of not separating children from their parents together with the principle of having a sensible immigration policy and concluded that Trump’s actions were correct. They must have done this under President Obama as when he did it no one batted an eyelid.

    Instead what happened was, the Trump haters who are constantly trying to find a way to prove he’s as evil as they claim, focused only on the fact of separating children from their parents and downplayed anything that would lead to an evaluation of the situation where Trump would be seen as normal as Obama (- I know Obama is not normal, but for this point, I’m talking from the point of view of the Left), so they could achieve their goal of discrediting him.

  3. What should have happened was that anyone ignoring the Rule of Law and insisting that we just believe all women should be shot for suggesting something so utterly despicable.

    Yes I noticed the irony. And how stupid you are for not understanding what I’m saying.

    The believe all women principle should be locked away in the impenetrable vault reserved for hiding away all of humanities worst ideas, including mob mentality, the Munich Agreement, religion, buying your wife bathroom scales for her birthday and that Jackie Chan reboot of the Karate Kid.

    Instead what happened was the Left freaked out when Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh, as he would give the Supreme Court enough votes to overturn Roe V Wade. As this would remove their legal permission to murder defenceless babies in the womb, they decided that Brett Kavanaugh was evil and must be prevented from being confirmed as a Justice at all costs.

    When Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations came to light the Left took took advantage of the opportunity that had ‘somehow’ fallen into their laps and collectively accepted the principle of believing all women without a shred of evidence, so that they could declare the person they would accept as Supreme Court Justice over their own dead bodies, as unfit for that position.

    They wouldn’t have done the same thing to Bill Clinton because he was not such a threat to their pretense that murder is just health care. And besides, he was on their side.

Now of course the second way is not merely stupid it’s also immoral. And it’s almost inconceivable that someone would work that way.

But just like arriving at a conclusion generally comes about on the basis of reason and logic, unless it clashes with a belief that is more important whereupon that approach is abandoned in favour of the conclude-based-on-what-your-more-fundamental-ideology-wants-you-to-believe approach, the same thing occurs when determining when to apply principles. We all generally analyse a situation using reason and logic to see when a principle applies and then follow it to its logical conclusion. However, some people reserve the right to throw all that away when it clashes with a more fundamental and important belief and switch to the second approach where they first decide what they want to conclude and then apply their principle when it proves their point.

This is the key. We all work with logical, rational thinking. That just makes sense. Unless we have something more important in which case we chuck it all out the window.

And again, as written in that previously mentioned wonderful article, the second more fundamental ideology of the Left is their warped version of the morality of equality.

So when discussing an idea that intersects (!) with their ideology of morality and equality they will throw reason and logic away.

That’s all well and good, I hear you ask, but telling us what’s going on in their mind has merely demonstrated with even greater clarity that the Left are hypocritical. How can you say they’re not?

To which I say the following: (Don’t worry, we’re almost done.This is the bit where I finally explain my point. Thanks for your patience.)

Since they conclude first and then decide whether to apply a principle, it’s clear that what makes them arrive at their conclusion is their ideology and not the principle itself, which should apply across the board. When they do seem to be using a principle to justify their conclusion, that is so that they don’t seem completely absurd and preposterous. Both to other people and themselves. This way, they think they are, and can present themselves to others as being rational, sensible people – when in fact they are being unfathomable imbeciles – as long as you don’t examine what they say too closely.

Therefore, since the principle is merely a facade for how they arrived at their conclusion, any imbalance in application of the principle as seen in the above three examples, is not an indication of their hypocrisy, as the principle is not the real reason for their belief. As the real reason for their beliefs, namely their ideology, does lead to the conclusions the Left make, it turns out they are completely principled in always following the dictates of their ideology.

In other words, when realising that a Leftist actually arrives at their conclusions by asking what their ideology dictates, you will see that they are very principled indeed. But if you are fooled by their attempts to seem rational and sane when they claim their conclusion is based on a reasonable principle, you will find them hypocritical when they don’t apply that principle across the board. Applying principles across the board is the natural outcome of using reason and logic to decide when a principle should apply in the first place. If you decide what you want to believe first and then determine when to use a principle based on whether it will prove your point or not, it’s highly likely that you won’t apply a principle in a place where it’s logical and reasonable to do so.

You think the left are hypocritical because you think they always work with reason and logic, so if there is a difference in applying a principle, that would demonstrate hypocrisy. But that completely misses what’s going on in the mind of a Leftist. They reserve the right to change approaches when it advances their ideology, while at the same time trying to seem reasonable and sane.

This also explains the extreme levels of lunacy they can reach while apparently being hypocritical. 

You must remember that part of this article which points out just how bad Leftists are and how far they will go in their apparent hypocrisy. It was very boring and you probably thought it was utterly irrelevant. The bit that shows how the Left would even create an absurd and wicked principle (believe all women) out of almost nothing.

They can reach said levels of lunacy because if the principles they present are not the actual reasons for their conclusions but are in fact merely excuses designed to make them seem rational and sane, then it’s not surprising that on occasion they will come up with one that’s absurd, crazy or even evil. It’s much easier to extend into absurdity for excuses and things you only believe in temporarily when they are being used to support your conclusion, than to do the same when using reason and logic to decide when to apply a principle.

In fact on occasion the dictates of their more fundamental ideology will make such incursions into stupidity, essential. After all, if your more fundamental ideology says it’s evil to prevent abortion because of some misguided understanding of morality, then you must prevent Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court Justice at all costs. And if twisting logic and sanity is the only way, then your brains will be sacrificed on the alter of a more righteous morality.

Very nice, I hear you say. You’ve explained why the Left are not hypocrites. You’ve also explained, somewhere else apparently, the insanity of the Left. But as interesting as some weird people may find it, why should we care about any of this? The Left are principled and not hypocritical. So what? How is any of this helpful? Is there a way any of this can be used to help us defeat the Left?

The short answer to that is, yes.

There’s a wonderful article that explains exactly how.

What do you mean who wrote it and where can you find it?

Sam Taylor

I'm Sam Taylor. I don't really like pointing out stupidity when I see it, but I'm going to. It's my way of reaching out to those who can actually think.

Recent Posts