When a man shows you who he is, believe him. – Maya Angelou
Among the great weaknesses of the Right is our powerful desire to believe that our opponents are fundamentally just as decent as we are. There’s actually some rationality behind that assumption. If our opponents are not fundamentally decent – that is, if they don’t share our core convictions about good and evil – we have no chance of reasoning with them. As we’re determined to prevail politically with logic and evidence rather than through bloodshed, the assumption is vital to keeping our guns in the closet.
But the evidence is strong that the Left does not agree with our convictions about good and evil. Now and then we get more of it.
Quite recently, Pramila Jayapal sought to deflect discussion from HAMAS’s rapes and other brutalizations of Israeli girls. From an open HAMAS supporter, the impulse to dismiss their atrocities might be understandable…but giving in to it indicates a missing moral foundation. Either that, or she’s seriously stupid. And yes, I suppose it could be both, though that leaves her tenure in Congress unexplained.
A few days later, a New York University law professor tried to justify those rapes as less evil than Israel’s military response:
Is wartime sexual violence a horrific crime? YES, with no mistake. But sex exceptionalism is also traditionally used to whip up support for entire military campaigns — we see Israel and the U.S. doing this now to justify a prolonged disproportionate air and ground war.
— Heidi Matthews (@Heidi__Matthews) December 5, 2023
It’s difficult to believe someone that morally empty could hold a law professorship at a prominent law school, but this is 2023.
The most illuminating giveaway of all is a few years old. Regard the little video below: a segment from a “debate” over what European policies should be toward the waves of “refugees” flooding Europe:
Note that the leftists, Simon Schama and Louise Arbour, scoff at the plague of sexual violence – rape, often gang rape, and often of underage girls – that the “refugees” have inflicted on the women and girls of Europe, and imply that the position of the Right is founded on prudery or “newborn feminism.” Mark Steyn’s riposte devastates them, simply by citing a handful of the known incidents the leftists were determined to dismiss with weak sarcasms.
But what does it really signify that Arbour and Schama regard violent sexual predation as something they can dismiss with a flip remark? Are these persons to whom you would entrust the care of a young girl? Would you be confident that they would protect her from the sort of vermin Mark Steyn cited? Or might their attitude be “Well, different cultures” or perhaps “Hey, these things happen” – ?
A man who’s willing to countenance the sacrifice of women’s and young girls’ bodies to debatable “humanitarian” priorities, or for the sake of some political or economic advantage, or perhaps merely to prevail over an ideological opponent, has embraced evil. Arbour and Schama have shed all pretense to the contrary. They have shown us who they are, and we should believe them.
Good men don’t compromise with evil. They don’t try to reason with evil. They fight evil. They do their utmost to destroy it. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.