Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.

Okay, I have to admit that I sort of forgot about this series.  Oops.  But I had been reviewing the Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives, and here’s where we’ve been:

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 5: Conservatives are fascists.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 4: Conservatives are anti-science neanderthals.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 2: Conservatives Hate the Poor.

And here’s where we’re going (exactly where you knew we were going):

Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.  No commas, probably should use hyphens, though, as that’s the breathless, said-as-one-word description of us that they have in their tiny little brains.  Wrapped up in this, of course, is the sense that we are drooling idiots who hate everyone who is unlike ourselves, toothless rednecks who shoot “others” on sight, a Bible-thumping God Squad intent on white supremacist isolationism.  And they believe it.  The “nuance” crowd, our supposed intellectual betters, have zero problem painting with broad brush every single conservative (though of course they are loathe to be so-stereotyped themselves).

I’ve thought about this post a lot, knowing it was coming, and have contemplated how I’ll approach it (a Fuzzy Rant seems so obviously in order, ya know?).  I settled on a focus on the mindset behind it rather than debunking (yet again) the idiocy of this belief.  After all, we know that we are not any of those things, with the possible exception of being Islamaphobic (that old “it’s not paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you” saw may be applicable here).  But it’s hardly going to be a complete post without at least mentioning the flaws on the face of that assumption, right?

Before I do that, though, I want to take a few moments (paragraphs) to examine leftist “thought.”

If your entire ideology is based on one tiny, ill-conceived, hastily-written (and later retracted) “manifesto,” it’s bound to be simple(-minded).  And if you have a wrong-headed belief that the way to transform something simple into something complex is to add more simple layers to it, then you just mire yourself in shallow thinking, tires spinning in tired mud.  Today’s leftists start with Marx, middle with Marx, and end with Marx.  Oh sure, they take their theoretical paintbrush and splash Marx paint around, but it’s always the same, simple(-minded) blather.

I used to feel so overwhelmed in graduate school, so inadequate, because my commie professors would keep insisting that [fill in the blank]ism was so “complex,” so mind-bogglingly brilliant . . .  and I just couldn’t see it.  I just sat there, nodding, thinking to myself that either they were complete morons . . . or I was.  As a graduate student, I naturally assumed the latter, and tried and tried to find something complex (or even interesting) in Showalter, Foucault,  Said, Derrida, Hegel . . . oh, the list goes on.  But it was all, all of it, at rock bottom, the same damn thing (even deconstruction, supposedly rendering a “text” “meaningless” only does so because the “meaning” is “indeterminate” or non-existent as constituting an all-out attack on . . . yep, [fill in the blank]ism. Besides, if there is no meaning, then we all need the government to step in and create it out of nothingness, right?  Uh huh.).

Being an English major at that (and this) time in our nation’s “intellectual” history was . . . shall we say, agony.  Literature wasn’t literature, every  novel, poem, play was not a novel, poem, or play; it was a “text” that had to be analyzed for oppression and for possible outlets for mass revolt sparked by one or more oppressed group.  This got tricky for the Marxists after a while, so after exhausting the dead-white-males-are-the-devil meme, they had to add to the canon works by Marxists that they claimed were “silenced” by dead, white male writers (who are, after all, the epitome of all that is wrong with the world and should therefore be . . . well, silenced.  But shhh, we don’t think too much about that).  That led to our reading, conveniently, assorted crap by radicals because they had a vagina or were black militants or . . . well, you get the picture.  We stopped reading literature and started reading political treatises disguised as literature.  All the better to dig out those “hidden” messages of oppression when we didn’t have to torture a “text” to locate them.

Every “ism” currently used to indoctrinate students is rooted in Marx (or in something he built on or that was built on his inchoate ramblings, so he becomes the secondary or tertiary conduit, but is still there, anchoring the whole mess or holding it down like some sort of ideological paper weight).  Every. Single. One.  Oh, sure, they add some layer to or under it, but it’s all the same thing: people belong to specialized “identity” groups (this is a fun spin on Marx’s focus on classes—the simple-minded just piled on layers of “oppressed” groups: women, blacks, Latinos/as, gays (then the entire spectrum of LGBT), even the planet), someone is exploiting someone else, and it’s all about money and power, and the only way to “reclaim” that money and/or power is to “revolt.”  The exploited class or gender or sexual orientation or [fill in the blank] is a victim of the exploiter (capitalist, white male, American, homophobes, whatever), and as such is “owed” recompense (or “social justice,” “economic justice,” blah-de-blah “justice”); if that recompense is not offered voluntarily (and of course it won’t be, or it wouldn’t be Marx), then it must be taken.  By any means necessary.  The ends always–always–justify the means.

RAAACIST? Misogynist? Homophobic? Really?!?

Racism, as we know, means hating someone or a group of someones because of their skin color or race.  It means thinking one’s own race superior to another, usually based on the belief that everyone else is inherently inferior because they do not share your same race.  It is narrow-minded, shallow, immoral, and basically evil.  Leftists have decided that conservatives are essentially “white males,” so any conservative, including non-white non-males, are automatically “racist.”  It’s really that simple.  They are really that simple(-minded).

Point out that TEA Party conservatives support minority, gay, and/or women candidates, and they simply declare that the minority, gay, or woman candidate is not “really” (or “authentically”) a minority, gay, or woman.  So, no, “racist” doesn’t mean what we think it means.  Not to leftists.  They can hate “niggers” all day long (and oh, yes, they all–white, black, whatever–use “the ‘N-word” with wild abandon), as long as they are conservative and therefore not authentically black.  They can publish rape fantasies about conservative women and gays, call us all sorts of horrible names, because we aren’t authentically women or gays.  To be “authentic” means to believe what they believe, to embrace victimhood and a sense of entitlement.  If you aren’t railing against every ism, outraged at every perceived slight or “coded” insult, and demanding government handouts, then you are simply not a “real” black person or a “real” woman or a “real” gay person, et al.

It’s so simple-minded, so naive, so childish, so truly wrong-headed that we’ve expended a lot of energy and time to point out leftist “hypocrisy.”  Don’t get me wrong, they are the worst sort of hypocrites, and we should absolutely call them out on it (ala Andrew Breitbart), but we need to do so in such a way that we address not only the hypocrisy but the fast and loose way they have with language and emotion.  Calling someone a racist is hurtful and damaging (well, okay, that particular card has been over-played to the point of invalidating it completely), but we may have to spend some time addressing what racism is and who is actually pushing policies that harm minorities (and gays and women) and who is pushing policies that help everyone.

Conservatives have lately been talking a lot about judging by the content of one’s character.  Leftists, on the other hand, are the ones who think that dark skin and/or a vagina are so debilitating that the government must step in to make up for them.  Darker skinned? Vaginally-afflicted?  Well, worry not, democrats have your impeded, hampered, inferior backs!  Woot!

Islamaphobic? Xenophobic? Seriously?

This one’s tougher in some ways, because I do think that I am indeed “Islamaphobic.” Something about the beheadings, the slaughter, the threats and intimidation, the homicide bombings, 9/11, the insistence that gays, women, and others that Islam considers to be subhuman should be killed in the name of Allah . . . well, go figure.  So yeah, I would have to hand this one to the leftists if it weren’t for the fact that they are also Islamaphobes, much more so and much less intelligently than we are (or than I am, can’t really call you an Islamaphobe, can I?).  They are so terrified of Islam that they seek to appease it; they ignore the treatment of women under Sharia (everything from the stonings, honor killings, sex slavery, lashings, to the second-class citizen status marked by the burkha), of gays (not allowed to live under Sharia. Period.), of all the “protected” classes they claim to defend.  They claim to abhor religious fundamentalism, but that only really means Christianity (and Judaism); they embrace Islamic fundamentalism, protect it almost jealously.

The Islamaphobia and xenophobia charges are usually rooted in their above-discussed skewed and narrow-minded view of the world (the little bit they occupy … in their heads) and is manifested in multiculturalism, the left’s latest failed great experiment.  I’ve written about this at some length before, so will keep it short here, but the gist is that if you want America to be a “melting pot” in which many cultures and races come together and meld or merge into one larger something better, then you are denying the people who choose to come here of their own free will the chance to keep the same thing from which they fled.  Go figure.  Wanting English spoken in America, wanting to protect American culture and traditions, wanting immigrants to assimilate . . . these are “xenophobic” responses of the idiot masses.  Does it matter that it’s the exact opposite of xenophobia, that welcoming foreigners into our midst, into our culture and society is the furthest thing from xenophobia?  Of course not. Not to leftists who actually insist that foreigners stick to their “own kind” and have their own separate (but “equal”) sub “communities” . . . and then have the gall to call us xenophobic.

But then, this is no real surprise, is it?  Leftists love their isolated and controllable “communities” of managed “identities” beholden only to them.  So much so that when there aren’t such “communities,” they’re happy to create them out of nothing and cause division along every line they draw be it race, sexual orientation, religion, culture, class, income level, or gender.

This is the epitome of racist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists and is exactly who and what leftists are.  But then, we all know they are the masters of projection.  Anything they accuse conservatives of being, we can be confident that they are the embodiment of that thing.  On steroids.


18 thoughts on “Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.

  1. Pingback: The top 5 lies leftists believe about conservatives | Babalú Blog

  2. Pingback: Sunday Links: Now With Even More Facebook Friend Pics!

  3. Fantastic post! Fuzzy, I think it comes down to liberals being psychotic control freaks. They need to make up crap out of thin air to make people think their victims. Plus, they deliberately pervert words. Who tries to change words meanings for purposes of victimization, power, and control other than psychotic progressives? Other people, normal rational people, live in realityville.

    • They are definitely control freaks, Teresa, that’s the essence of their need for power. They truly believe that only the federal government has the answers, that morality and every other choice of the people should be dictated by their superior selves. Hmph!

  4. Great post, Fuzzy. I am also glad that, aside from the overt damage leftists do in colleges and government, you point out how they use groups of people for their own benefit. Leftists are heroically fighting the oppression of [fill in group], so if [the group] knows what’s good for them, they know to vote leftist!

    Thus they keep people in political bondage. At least until someone states that the Emperor really doesn’t have any clothes on.

    • Heyas Velcro, always so great to see you 🙂 And yes, the only oppression a leftist likes is their own oppression of everyone, including (especially) their pet “communities.” Pathetic that these “communities” don’t even see it.

  5. awesome post! noone says it quite like you, fuzzy 😉 but i’m also glad to see writers taking some wind out of the sails of the leftie propoganda machine. let’s keep it going! who’da thunk when we were back in college, the attempts at brainwashing by liberal professors would show up to haunt them on blogs for the viewing public? Ha! take that lefties!

    • Well, for a while there, I was confused enough to minor in “women’s studies.” *Sigh* I quickly got over that nonsense when I realized what it was and how detrimental it was to women. But . . . yeah, I went there, however briefly.

  6. I consider myself maximum conservative, Therefore, I’d say that True conservatives are Very Far Left Socially. I am. I do not care what people do as long as it’s legal, or illegal in some cases of victimless crime or self-victimization, as long as I don’t have to pay for it.
    I’m not their keeper. I’m not their God. I will not pass judgement on them if they follow the rule where they respect others liberty. That’s all I ask.

    Most would say Abortion breaks that rule and I vastly agree, but that’s where the I’m not their God comes in.

    • I’m sort of with you on that, Kid. I don’t care what other people do as long as it doesn’t hurt others or is legal. But I guess I differ in that I think the leftist control of our culture has gone too far, pushing aside morality, ethics, etc. in favor of hedonistic amorality. This, in turn, has made things that only two decades ago were beyond the pale the actual norm. This, I have a problem with. It undermines the foundation of our republic, and yes, it undermines everyone’s liberty. That, I guess, is where we differ (however slightly, and in your case, with the utmost respect. I’m a big fan of yours 🙂 )

      • Wow, Thanks Fuzz. I admit, I presented the 10,000 foot level view. I’d say we need a lot of the laws we have that protect society form immediate harm and longer term decay. But we have gone way overboard with things like seat belt laws, prostitution (I never would), various other things. They really did mean Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Too many folks want to control.

        Now I’m at 9,999 feet 🙂 I think soon, I’m going to blog my case for legalizing all drugs. That should be fun. I’m going to make my case and let people comment, maybe reply lightly, as I respect people’s opinion on such an emotional far reaching subject but I think I have a good case. We’ll see.

        • I agree with you that there are too many laws that are too invasive, including seat belt laws. Prostitution and drugs, though? Naw, I’m conservative on those and think they should be illegal. But I don’t “hate” people for thinking differently on that point. Live and let live.

  7. Yeah, the trials of being a modern English major… I can relate, Fuzzy.

    I especially enjoy the way that just every form of literary criticism now is based in Marxist politics. Post-colonialism, deconstruction(ism?– I don’t even remember how to spell it) Queer theory, New Historicism, etc. are all based in Marxist theory. Plus there’s just the straight up Marxist theory of literature. I’ve read quite a bit of Trotsky out of my Norton Readers and such. I mean even reader-response was given a Marxist spin, along with the Sartre’s existentialist take (not long before he “recanted” and just became a straight up Marxist).

    It’s nonsense. And the nonsense is reflected in the absolute triviality of the crud which is being produced by the modern academic critics. Nobody reads their junk outside of themselves and grad students who are assigned their work. And that’s it. They’ve enclosed themselves into a tight little bubble (ivory tower is far too grand a metaphor) where all they do is push Leftist agendas to pretty much nobody and slap themselves on the back for doing it– all the while stabbing each other in the back to get the choice jobs at the universities. It’s comedy set in a Stalinist-regime-lite. Yup. Nonsense and comedy.

    And Derrida… good Lord. Some failed French philosopher who’s work was misinterpreted and taken out of context by English teachers who didn’t understand it. He’s held so low by the philosophy community that the philosophy department at UC Irvine refused to house Derrida when the English department shipped him in for a few symposiums.

    I mean the guy took Saussure’s way imperfect linguistic theory (which I’m pretty sure Saussure never published by the way, his “theory” was cobbled together from his students’ notes like Aristotle) from what like the late 19th early 20th century, and then just drove it into the ground with a bunch of mental sleight of hand from “Philosophical Tricks to Confound your Friends 101” and Marxist suppositions. Brilliant! Nobody in linguistics was using Saussure’s theories anyway. It’s like using Marx to attack the “ether” theory of space. In fact, it’s not even that. Derrida’s crap relies on Saussure’s theories to be true– just incomplete. Without Saussure’s structuralism, there can’t be deconstruction. It’s ridiculous.

    And besides Derrida’s crap was designed to work (funnily enough) with the French language that has a closed dictionary. In English and other free-floating languages Derrida’s suppositions make no sense because the dictionary is there to define language in general usage, not to restrict the language that’s in use. Too bad none of the deconstructionists of the 70s and on had brains enough to realize this. And they didn’t. They didn’t ignore the fact, they just didn’t know.

    And this is the theory that swamped English departments for like forty or fifty years now? Really? It’s pathetic.

    • That’s the sad thing about what these people have done, really. It’s not like some of those philosophers don’t have something useful to say, it’s the way they are butchered and crammed into the Marx box that is truly reprehensible (and I’d argue laughable). It’s like they can’t understand anything beyond their tiny little Marxist worldview; heck, it’s not “like” that, it IS that. When you point out that reading Aristotle and Plato (for instance) through the lens of Marx is not only historically dishonest but intellectually dishonest, they act like you’ve just told them that the earth is flat after all. It’s damned strange that these supposed intellectual giants can’t understand a single thing without Marx, that they literally ignore what they can’t make fit . . . or they invent a new layer to “explain” how it really does make Marxist sense. You’re right, it’s pathetic. And I’d add shallow and anti-intellectual–heck a crime against the intellect, actually. heh, a real thought crime. Anyway, it wouldn’t be so bad if they just sat around deluding themselves, but they are forcing these crazy ideas on millions upon millions of impressionable young minds (every college student, down to frosh writing and survey courses, is exposed to this crap, it’s not just grad students–though they are treated to the most aggressive assaults), creating more of their kind, ensuring that limited thinking is passed down through the generations. It makes me crazy.

  8. There is a certain prudence to “islamophobia”. As in you are more likely to be killed by a terrorist in the name of Islam than you are to be killed (or even attacked by a shark).

    Even the government has gotten involved in the bandwagoneering to suppress “Islamophobia”. Remember the DHS commercials urging us that if we “see something” we should “say something”? The problem is if we do see something, we are most likely to see a Muslim doing it. The problem is we will be called raaacist for seeing it in the first place. The commercials did everything they could do to make is believe the terror threat was well dressed upper-class looking caucasians.

    • I consider it Islamorealism. They’ve said they want us all dead. I believe them. The Catch-22 of political correctness / multiculturalism that you note is very real and comes from the top down. That’s why we can’t have four more years of this clown.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s