A perfect illustration of how the Left counterattacks

The mosque debate in America has been instructive when it comes to Leftist rhetorical tactics.  Ordinary Americans make an argument — “the mosque is inappropriate on secular sacred ground.”  The Left then responds, not substantively, but with personal attacks — “you’re racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic and stupid.”

If you think this approach to debate is limited to the American Left, think again.  Precisely the same thing is playing out in Germany.  There, Thilo Sarrazin, a German central bank board member and former senior city official in Berlin, has given an interview and published a book, both of which carry the same message:  Germany is being destroyed by its Muslim immigrants, who take a disproportionate amount of welfare relative to their contributions, who do not contribute to the nation’s intellectual life, and who are having children at a much faster rate than the Germans themselves.

The Leftist response has been predictable.  They’ve produced carefully detailed statistics showing the major economic and social contributions that Muslim immigrants are making to Germany society, and proved that the birthrate argument is a fallacy.  In the face of these reasoned arguments, Sarrazin has backed down.  They’ve hurled myriad personal insults at Sarrazin, and threatened his right to free speech:

Sarrazin’s comments have also made waves outside of the SPD. Green Party head Cem Özdemir called Sarrazin a “tribal leader in the mold of bin Laden” in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE and said that he has done a “disservice to efforts aimed at improving the dramatic social inequalities in our country, and not just among immigrants.” He said he was disappointed because “the ongoing debate over mutual expectations of Germans and immigrants is much more rational than Sarrazin makes it seem.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel is likewise unimpressed. Through her spokesman Steffen Seibert, she said on Wednesday that Sarrazin’s offerings were “extremely injurious, defamatory and very polemical.” She also called them “completely unhelpful” and said that “a different tone is necessary.”

[snip]

Following Sarrazin’s comments last autumn, the SPD began proceedings to kick him out of the party, but the attempt failed in March. He was, however, disciplined by the German Central Bank, which stripped him of his previous responsibility for cash management as a result of the Lettre International interview. It is unclear whether the SPD will make another effort to strike him from the rolls.

No matter in which country you drop a Leftist, he’s still a Leftist, committed to doctrinal purity regardless of objective reality.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Danny Lemieux says

    This tactic is not new. Hitler wrote that to attack the opposition one had to hit the opposition with so many charges from all directions that it was impossible for the target of that attack to refute all of them. The target would be left sputtering helplessly against the charges and would therefore look either guilty or foolish. Hitler was borrowing from the playbook of the Bolsheviks at the time. He also recognized that this had nothing to do about debate and everything to do about crushing the opposition.
     
    This is the same tactic adopted by Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals (i.e., “freeze the target”) and which is now practiced by campus Leftist Democrats (I repeat myself) in shouting down conservative speakers.
     
    The best way to fight a tactic like that is to call it out for what it is. Maybe we need to invent a term for that tactic so that people can readily identify what is going on. It’s much easier with all the alternate forms of media available to us now.

  2. says

    Junk lawyers, either intuitively, or as a deliberate tactic, do exactly the same thing.  Their briefs may contain three or four lies, irrelevancies, or misstatements per sentence.  The problem, always, is that judges, like the general public, have short attention spans, and don’t want to sit through an explanation that leads them to factual or legal truth.  And in the court, if you try to tell the judge what’s going on (“calling out the tactic for what it is”), you’ll get lectured on unprofessionalism and name-calling.  It’s a no win, and very frustrating indeed.

  3. says

    It’s just like dealing with criminals. They don’t follow the same rules as you do, so if you obey those rules, you will lose to the crims.
     
    Be better at the criminal’s game than the criminal and victory is assured. All else is a gamble.
     
     

  4. says

    This was much talked about in self-defense fields. Criminals interview and target people who they specifically think aren’t aware of or are able to counter the game criminals play.
     
    Because it is a matter of opportunity and time. If criminals think they have a chance now, with a concurrent risk of punishment later, they will take that chance. But if their target is equally capable of jumping the criminal, as the crim is capable of jumping the target, then the crim has two problems. Risk of failure now and risk of punishment later. It’s not all rewards now and some imaginary punishment later. It is very real death or crippling now, vs a reward that may not be acquired.
     
    The Left would never attack people the way they do, if they got Zero benefit out of it. So long as you are trying to “defend” against it, they have every incentive to push the offensive and keep you on your toes. Even if you fight off every ethics charge, the cost for them making the attack is still less than the resources you have put into defense.
     
    The way to make it have Zero benefit, is to be better at their game than they are. Then they won’t play that game and you have forced them to either find another target or pick another game.

  5. says

    Reminds me of the old saying among lawyers, “If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If the facts are against you, argue the facts.  If both are against you, pound the table.”  The liberals pound the table because they know they cannot hope to win a reasoned argument.

  6. says


    No matter in which country you drop a Leftist, he’s still a Leftist, committed to doctrinal purity regardless of objective reality.”
     
    The Left cannot loosen the grip even a micron. If they let even one person from the cult step out of line, it’s all over for them.

Leave a Reply