Liberal doublethink sinking western civilisation

Should I buy a television or should I buy a washing machine? Should I buy beef or should I buy chicken? Should I go on holiday or should I save the money? Should I drive or should I go by bus?

For rational people, these everyday questions are very simple, but they must be torment for the liberal; the doublethink liberal that cannot decipher right from wrong, good from bad, policies that lead to prosperity over policies that lead to poverty, people who are good over people who are evil, and so on and so on.

Decision making for Conservatives, on the other hand, is very cut and dry; it is very easy as we can clearly discern right from wrong; it is either black or white—there is no grey. That is a hard concept for liberals to grasp as everything in their world is grey; for in their world, things simply can’t be ‘black’ or ‘white’ as that would imply a ‘good’ and an ‘evil’ and that wouldn’t fit their utopian worldview that everyone is equal. Before getting into today’s post, a snippet of Evan Sayet is called for:    

Years ago at the outset of feminism I heard a radio advertisement that said “hire a woman—they can do everything” and I thought to myself ‘That’s a lie; they can’t do everything.’ Regrettably, however, that was just the start of it all; they wanted to be equal to men, but they still wanted men to pay for their drinks; they wanted to be equal to men, but they still wanted men to open car doors for them; they…………………….and the doublethink began.

Since then we’ve seen the liberal doublethink grow; they hate war but love abortion; they preach ‘save the planet’ and then fill up at the pump; they preach equality for women and then say the burqa is a Muslim woman’s choice; they are pro equality for gays but are opposed to equality for polygamists; they are opposed to businesses making a profit but they want employment; they say they care about children but they are indebting their children to support their own welfare addiction………….the list is never ending.

The following article by J.E. Dyer on Hot Air clearly highlights how liberal doublethink is sinking western civilisation. The liberal drive for equality is creating inequality; when they afford equality to one group, they take it away from another. In the article you will see how New Zealand’s liberal broadcasting authority condemns Islamic anti-gay rants in the UK, but here in New Zealand they promote multiculturalism; they detest Islamic anti-gay hate but import Muslims into New Zealand. You will also see how British government agencies subsidise Islamic anti-gay hate, yet at the same time doublethink Cameron is trying to push gay marriage through. You will also see so-called-doublethink-liberal equality; giving to Muslims and taking away from Christians.

Read this; it’s a good read:

There may not always be an England

posted at 7:11 pm on December 6, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

Q.  When does the British government subsidize a TV channel that carries the rants of anti-gay religious fanatics?

A.  When the TV channel is run by Islamist extremists.

OK, that one was a softball.  But it’s worth pointing out a telling contrast in the British government’s stance on people’s right to think unapproved thoughts about homosexuality.

Here is what Mr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, a speaker who has been featured on Britain’s Ramadan TV, has to say about gays:

Abdullah Hakim Quick … has been condemned by New Zealand’s broadcasting authority for his anti-gay tirades, which state that homosexuals must be killed, that they are “sick” and “not natural”, and that “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it’s not enough to call names.” He continues to hold this position: “They said ‘what is the Islamic position [on homosexuality]?’ And I told them. Put my name in the paper. The punishment is death. And I’m not going to change this religion.”

The National Health Service’s North East London & the City agency responded to this editorial posture by subsidizing Ramadan TV to the tune of £3,200.  Sam Westrop at the Gatestone Institute (first link) gives other examples of bloodthirsty extremism from the talking heads on Ramadan TV.  Homosexuality, however, is the topic that highlights the unequal treatment now being accorded to citizens of the UK.

Islamist anti-gay ranters may find their media outlets subsidized by British government agencies, but foster parents who merely can’t agree to endorse homosexuality to children under the age of 10 are denied any further opportunities to take in foster children.  Such was the judgment of the Derby City Council against Owen and Eunice Johns in 2010.  The council’s decision on the matter was upheld by the British High Court in February 2011.

The organization Christian Concern summarized the court’s findings at the time (all emphases in original):

[T]he [High Court] judges stated:

• That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”,
• That there is a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Yet, as regards fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”,
• That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality,
• That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs (This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs), and
• That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”.

So, it is clear that if you are Christian and don’t endorse homosexuality, you will be denied participation in government-regulated activities – even if you state, as Eunice Johns did, that you have no animus against gays.  But if you are an Islamist organization and your featured speakers advocate death for homosexuals, you can be subsidized by a government agency – that is, by the UK taxpayer. Read more