Followers of my blog know that I’m a fan of Rebecca Hargreave’s, alias Blonde in the Belly of the Beast. Outside of her brief video seminars she also joins up with Matt Christiansen for a weekly podcast called The Beauty and The Beta (all on Bitchute and YouTube).
My positions are more often with Matt than with Rebecca. He has a measured approach to everything and does not allow any double standards. People like him are the guarantee that the right does not become as batshit crazy as the left. Rebecca on the other hand pulls no punches and goes for the jugular, Ann Coulter style. A breeze of fresh air.
One moral question arises again and again: Should the right engage in the same tactics like the left? I also had this problem with my blog. I set out with rules for my site to ensure that it is squeaky clean. There is no way to verify who I am at the moment so the trust of my readers is solely based on due diligence. If I lied shamelessly like the mainstream media, nobody would bother to read. Not only do I have to be at least as credible as them, I need to have higher standards because I don’t have a brand behind me to lend me trust. Example: With few exceptions I refrain from calling people anything that they would feel uncomfortable with. I do not use “left-wing extremist”, “do-gooders” and so on.
But that has a price. The other side will not understand that they are aggressive unless they become victims of their own tactics. It’s human nature. If everybody were as squeaky clean as my blog, Angela Merkel would never feel the pitchfork in her back. Nice people don’t shout at her “Nazi! Nazi!” and warn of a potential mass murder if she were not “fought” with all “courage” that we can muster. I don’t necessarily want her to feel that pitchfork in her back, but unless somebody makes her suffer, and I really mean suffer, she will not realize that she was leading a pitchfork mob herself for many years.
ZEIT has some silly article about how our country were proto-fascist and I use it as an example of how I cannot keep up with the left-wing depravity. The thesis is that we face the advent of a new fascism because we were seeing already the “destruction of moral standards, liberal/libertarian/pro-freedom achievements and disrespect for moral attitudes and policies which are friendly to human beings.” I have a hard time to pour buckets of glib over my own policy wishes although I also believe that they are “friendly to human beings.”
While such phrases are not outright lies, they smack of dishonesty. I have interests. Tobias Haberkorn, the author of the ZEIT article, also furthers his own interests.
Then there is the vaguely phrased attack. Of course, he does not say that the left is destroying moral standards. He accuses the right. This is not elaborated. What libertarian/liberal/pro-freedom achievement does the right try to destroy? He just leaves it dangling. His readers are conditioned to never ask questions anyway.
And I ask myself as somebody who is not a pacifist: Why would I consider killing another person, but have so much scruple about lying? And I think this is rooted in religion. If you have a connection with the Bible, and with history as such, you will find that many scholars at all times judged that all evil comes from deception. You cannot help but kill somebody who attacks you, but you can make sure that there is as much clarity as possible to reduce the risk of killing an innocent person. Many people who have looked over the course of history came to this conclusion and for religious people, and some others, the world did not start with them. People had wisdom that precedes us. So I won’t go down the dishonesty lane “to give false testimony against my neighbour.”
Then he complains about the fact that the fascism accusation loses its power. He does not ask why that is and how to change that again. There is no realization that false accusations have destroyed the meaning of the word. He only sees an “over-sensitivity.” And while the fascism claim is ubiquitous, he says that the right just needed to moan, “they are wielding the Nazi club against us” and the accusations would fail. That is not true, of course. Cars burn, windows get smashed, people who plaster posters get shot and so on because left-wingers actually believe that all these claims were honest and not exaggerated.
I could not employ the same tactic because I will not stand on the graves of those who died under fascism and dishonor them. I just cannot. Even if I had no soul – like leftists – and did not care, it would not work because conservatives are not a rabid mob. They fact-check and have often been falsely accused themselves. Nobody will burn down Angela Merkel’s car only because I call her a Nazi and claim that she is dangerous.
Another problem is that people really forget history when the Holocaust and fascism are trivialized. In Germany the attack goes mostly one way. The left accuses the right of being fascist. When right-wingers try to fight back they preface the word “fascist” with the German word for “left” to make sure that history is not trivialized (German: Linksfaschismus, i.e. left-fascism). In America these precautions have gone completely and we see some wild mud-slinging with no person involved who knows a thing or two about Mussolini, the fascist manifesto, Hitler’s brand and whether or not any of it is distinct enough to place it outside the epoch. Fascism has been downgraded to “bad” and to “I don’t like you.”
Rebecca Hargreaves sees this problem and is torn. On the one hand, she feels that the danger of losing the culture war is so big that ignoring any weapons could risk failure. On the other hand, the “fascism” mud-slinging shows that many left-wingers don’t even understand their aggression when they do get their own medicine served. The step to make them grasp it would be to use violence, antifa-style, and even that could produce idiots who cannot see that their side is causing this response. It would be a downward spiral.
I believe that one has to go down into the mudpit – a bit. Some people wake up when they have it coming. I believe in a measured approach. You use the same tactics, but you make sure that you use them more mildly. You must also react timely so that the original attack and your response are understood as connected. Fairness is an innate trait. Our ancestors divvied out their foods fairly or they would have died once hunting luck and the collection of berries, salads and fruits had not produced enough for one part of the group or another. As a consequence people today react to double-standards when they are pointed out. Donald Trump won because Twitter users made sure to clarify that Hillary Clinton had lower moral standards than him.
P.S. This covers only a small portion of the mentioned ZEIT article. The transgressions go on. Interior Minister Horst Seehofer is called “latently despotic” and “autocratic” for cancelling an appointment for a stupid “Integration Conference.” A participant of said conference likened him to Hitler. The very basic vocabulary to protect our freedom is eroded and again there is no way to fight back. The leftist depravity goes on and on and on.