Yesterday a tweeter responded to my post – The real horror of progressive liberalism pt2 – #racial & #cultural #genocide saying I was nuts. Of course I asked why, and then ensued a conversation over twitter. It was a case of left meets right in the very rare occasion of civilised conversation. Almost always any interaction normally descends very quickly with the left trying to power play the conversation, hurling insults and eventually stomping off.
That is not to say it was easy though. From my perspective it was clear fairly quickly that the filtering mechanism in her brain ensured that any information that did not comply with her world view simply didn’t exist. Credit where credit is due – she battled on and tried to make the connection and understand.
I think that for the first time in a long time for her, a process of starting to question the narrative that was now so firmly embedded had started. And I can understand completely that it is hard to let go of a world view that has been indoctrinated, but I think what was really getting to her is that we want the same things. We were in fact both peace niks wanting everyone to get along, it was our take on how to pursue this that was different.
she struggled with the following facts:
- progressive liberals have an ulterior motive that is very unpleasant and hidden behind a ‘peace and love’ message – the end game of this agenda was one race, one language, one economy, with a ruling elite
- that progressive liberals were the political elite and the 1% that she was voting for – to her the 1% were republicans and the democrat political elite were saving the world from the greed.
- that Islam was not liberal like Christianity. This was a major sticking point for her because by virtue of there being moderate Muslims (most of them) meant that the religion was also moderate. In the same way that some Christians might believe in creation theory as a literal translation of Adam and Eve but really most people know differently, so she was of the view that extremist Islam would be on that sort of level, a miss interpretation of text, that most Muslims knew it was wrong. But no, the text is there, moderates don’t ascribe to it because they have no desire to be literal warriors of Islam. However, there is not a moderate Muslim who thinks that the text is wrong because they can’t (they would no longer be Muslim if they thought that) and if the chips are down they would choose Islam over patriotism to a Christian country. This to her was impossible to compute.
- She didn’t believe that there was a push for Sharia Law in the west, or at least she thought it would never be accepted (a point on which we agreed), but couldn’t see how actually Sharia Law was already being practised, for example the acceptance of polygamy in the UK by the state even though it is against the law. That the women’s march was actually coming out in favour of Sharia Law both in the US and Europe. She was clear that she was against Sharia Law, but couldn’t see that it was already being made acceptable – normalised. That yes really there was two separate rules of law developing where by non Muslims were held to state law and Muslims were being allowed to administrate their own Sharia Law courts – there is now discussion in the UK to integrate Sharia into the state legal system.
- she couldn’t accept that any other news sources other than CNN or BBC or ‘legitimate’ mainstream media as credible and labelled them as GOP propaganda tools full of hate and #fakenews. She couldn’t comprehend that actually all these independent news sources were independently funded and mostly crowd funded by people just like her.
- She was finding hard to comprehend that there was one person, George Soros, who was funding the marches, the riots and almost every disruptive action we are seeing today in the US. For her these were all separate groups and not representative of each other, when I gave her this information, she went silent.
- that the hate and violence was coming from the liberals and the leftist media. Zero evidence of that kind of behaviour from the right. Yet in her mind it is only the right who behave like that, liberals would never do that.
- That there was more than one solution to achieving that happy world where everyone gets along.
There was a break in the conversation of about 20 hrs and it was clear that, on resumption of the conversation, that she had fallen back into her delusional liberal hole of fear and hate and projecting it onto those she feared and hated, and started to become aggressive and so the conversation soon wrapped up.
What did I learn from the experience?
I learnt there there is a very real fear of rational arguments and all potential sources for them. I mentioned Stefan Molyneux who is always very balanced, articulate and well researched, and she said that he was full of hate – only there is nothing hateful about Stefan, frustration, strained patience, good boundaries, strong morals, maybe, but not hate. But her comment felt to be more about not wanting to hear common sense and reasoned arguments or even the idea of having to hear them – that it was overwhelming for her nervous system. Because she was getting that type of physical reaction (triggered), she was interpreting that as ‘hateful’ as one might do if they were being emotionally abused and may explain why conversations are so difficult and descend quickly in insults.
This is not untypical of responses in people who are brain washed, you only have to approach a person in a cult, or strong adherents to a religion to see this – they always have a false sense of superiority and moral high ground, fail to critically think, lack cohesive logical arguments and become verbally aggressive when their world view is not being accepted as absolute. The great news is that brainwashing doesn’t remove the identity, and so removing the reinforcing mechanism will often see the self start to re-emerge.
To those who are subject to the irrational behaviour of liberals on a daily basis, this may be an obvious conclusion, however, it is worth pointing it out specifically and putting it on the table of awareness so that better solutions can be found to communicating with them. Why? because we all want to get along and have valid discourse to progress our ideas and evolve our solutions to the problems we face as a civilisation as a whole – diversity of opinion and ideas sits at the core of that. Without discourse we are likely to descend into war, and no one wants that except the progressive liberals and Muslim extremists.