It’s perplexing, isn’t it? The far-left’s ability to champion seemingly incongruous causes, like embracing Hamas and its violent anti-gay rhetoric while fervently advocating for transgender rights. It often leaves many scratching their heads. How can we possibly communicate with people who hold such ideals?
How can so-called rational leftists simultaneously champion draconian language protocols that equate speech with violence while downplaying actual violent atrocities as mere acts of “decolonization”? How can they rally for open borders, inviting everyone to take up residence in their country while asserting the sanctity of reclaimed land? It seems contradictory, but perhaps there’s a method to their madness.
For the far left, political power reigns supreme. The ability to hold contradictory beliefs isn’t a flaw; it’s a calculated strategy to gather a diverse coalition and amass political dominance.
Gone are the days where class was the factor around which democrats and socialists gathered around; they’ve pivoted towards a motley crew of fringe groups, assembling a coalition of individuals who, in a fair and just society, might find themselves on the margins.
Their strategy involves uplifting those who would struggle to find a foothold in a meritocratic system. Elevating the status of the marginalized, from avid Hamas supporters to the most radical activists, serves as a potent bargaining chip for securing unwavering loyalty. This paves the way for a coalition comprising misfits and outliers, guided by a select group of self-assured elites at the forefront.
This astute maneuvering explains why “Queers for Palestine” can coexist without raising an eyebrow within Leftist circles. The far left’s political agenda, driven by the pursuit of power, knows no boundaries, weaving together an intricate web of ideologies to build a formidable, albeit unconventional, political force. It allows the left to give a certain degree of merit to disparate individuals’ gripes as long as they maintain the paradoxical mental landscape.
And so we’ve reached the point where it has become important to know when to disengage from discussion and spare our energy.
After all, you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.