Before I give you the proof, I’ll summarize:
Modern Leftism is a logically incoherent collection of hatreds against historical markers for social power. 300 years ago, wealthy white male hetero Christians really did have notable power in white society, and John Adams, one of the USA’s founders wanted to keep it that way, claiming that anything else would lead to “tyranny of the petticoat.” (His wife Abigail – shown above -was not pleased.)
Leftism wants all of those markers – wealthy, white, male, hetero, Christian – to go together. They don’t always go together. Rather than figuring out the details of human nature, Leftism just ignores the inconvenient points as long as possible.
The guiding principle of Leftist thought is: Hasty generalization is NOT fallacious IF it advances the Leftist narrative. (Hasty generalization MIGHT BE fallacious if it impedes the Leftist narrative.)
White males are evil, therefore non-whites are positively good, and white women should try to be less white, and also prove that their white female ancestors were inevitably tortured martyrs imprisoned by Evil White Males, forced to bear twelve babies without anesthesia, then burned at the stake for witchcraft.
(Note that historical facts, especially if taken from texts pre-dating the 20th century, may impede this Leftist purification of narratives. Therefore Leftists have made considerable efforts to dismantle university History departments in the Western world.)
Wealthy white Christian men, such as Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller, oppressed the poor; therefore ALL white Christian men, including striking coal miners shot dead by Pinkertons, are wealthy oppressors.
Medieval Christians oppressed Jews (and burned trillions of European women at the stake for witchcraft, miraculously failing to exterminate Europe in the process), therefore ALL Christians ALWAYS oppress Jews.
Al Capone was a Christian, and therefore organized crime must be Christian, insofar as it is harmful. Meyer Lansky must have been nonexistent, or perhaps a crypto-Chinese. But if organized crime does something of which Leftists approve (giving some assistance to Saul Alinsky, perhaps) then, perhaps, organized crime was merely an immature form of Marxist revolution.
(Some) hetero males (sometimes) rape women, and thus ALL hetero males are evil and guilty and liable for all rapes. Home males are not hetero, and thus must be relatively good; thus when homo males rape somebody (as happens more often than gets reported) hetero males are more blameworthy than ANY homo male. (Domestic violence in lesbian couples, although a horrible and lethal problem, doesn’t fit the Leftist narrative, and thus never gets reported.)
Christianity is evil, and Muslims sometimes enter conflicts with Christians, so Muslims are at least relatively good.
It may happen sometimes that a homo or a Muslim does some evil deed while a white man is nearby; if so, the white man made him do it and must be punished. It may happen that sometimes a homo or a Muslim does some evil deed while no white man is nearby. In that event, Leftists must stress the narrative that hetero white Christian men are ultimately to blame; but additionally, Leftists are allowed to call the cops, who will be expected to deal with the physical danger in a politically correct manner. In places like Glasgow, as shown below, functioning police forces are proactive enforcers of politically correct public speech:
The City Journal wrote:
Eventually, however, news of the assaults leaked out, and the most surprising cover-up of all began. Leading feminists across the continent and in Great Britain either ignored the incidents entirely or distorted their significance beyond recognition. Silence was justified on the grounds that acknowledging the attacks would encourage opposition to the mass Muslim immigration that had engulfed Europe over the previous year. (German chancellor Angela Merkel accelerated that migration by declaring in August 2015 that her country would accept all Syrian asylum-seekers who made it in to her country.) Feminists were “finding it difficult to speak up about the event because of concerns it might be used to encourage aggression against refugees,” explained British journalist Jessica Abrahams. When feminists were cornered into addressing the violence, they tied themselves into knots trying to change the subject back to their favorite topic: Western white-male patriarchy.
You can read the whole thing at the link.
As a socio-economic footnote to feminist aspect, here are a few hatefacts to copy and share with friends.
As a geopolitical footnote to the Muslim aspect, note that violence is not limited to Europe:
A major newspaper in Canada has removed a story about two refugee children who choked a girl with a chain while shouting “Muslims rule the world” in a shocking example of politically correct-driven censorship.
The original article published by the Chronicle Herald described how a grade three girl at Chebucto Heights Elementary School was choked on two separate occasions by two “refugee boys” who had arrived in February and that “a chain was used on both occasions”.
According to the girl’s mother ‘Missy’, who didn’t want to be named because she feared retribution, the boys yelled “Muslims rule the world” while they carried out the assault, but were not even disciplined by the school.
252 refugee students are currently enrolled in the region, with another 71 waiting on settlement of permanent housing.
Another mother quoted by the Herald also claimed that her daughter begged her to be allowed to stay home from school after she was “slapped after she and a classmate disagreed in the schoolyard,” and that the school again took no action and didn’t even call her.
But perhaps the most shocking turn of events came when the Herald, which had already printed the story in its hard copy, first edited the article on its website to remove the “Muslims rule the world” quote and then deleted the story entirely.
After social justice warriors chimed in with a flurry of complaints, in a bow to political correctness, the Herald replaced the story with a mealy-mouthed apology stating, “Bullying is a sensitive subject. So is the integration of newcomers, particularly those who have faced challenges, even trauma, on their way here.”
The fact that the headline may have caused offense to an “identifiable cultural group” was also described at “problematic” by the newspaper, which also lamented the fact that news outlets critical of Islam had shared the story.