Accueil > political correctness, Politique > Evan Sayet, Gauchisme et la culture de non-discrimination

Evan Sayet, Gauchisme et la culture de non-discrimination

Je me suis souvenu d’un discours d’Evan Sayet, prononcé durant la convention du Heritage Foundation en 2009. Ce discours, intitulé « Hating what’s Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue », explique pourquoi la Gauche moderne (Modern Liberalism) est une philosophie qui va invariablement être du mauvais côté d’un débat dans le but d’éviter toute forme de discrimination.

NOTA: J’ai modifié un peu le texte. Les références à « Democrats » ont été changées pour « Leftists », histoire de rentre l’argumentation viable pour le Québec.

Cet extrait est sur le sujet de l’abstinence, une philosophie que les Gauchistes considèrent totalement ridicule:

« In order to help people live better lives, the republic seeks to encourage them to engage more in the behaviors that lead to success, the better behaviors. The modern liberal ain’t capable of recognizing better behaviors. Not only does he not promote the better behaviors, he attacks them. He attacks the better behaviors as, after all, nothing’s better than anything else. What we say is better must be the beneficiary of our bigotries.

Thomas Sowell, if you have a conflict of visions that might be the visions of anointment, said, “That which is held in esteem qualifies to be their targets. That which is held in distain qualifies to be their mascot.” I think the wording there is just a little too cutesy. But what he means is that there is no other criteria by which the modern liberal comes to their beliefs and their policies take what you believe and attack it.

See, having any beliefs at all is an act of bigotry. And it is their job to destroy your beliefs whether you believe that America is good or that it’s funded fascism is evil. So let me give you a couple of examples.

You and I recognize that childhood abstinence is a behavior that increases one’s behavior for success. All right, it doesn’t guarantee it, but it makes it more likely. Let’s do it the other way: it makes less likely one’s chances for success if as a child, they are promiscuous. All right forget the main component; just simply consider the practicalities. If your boy’s out messing around, he’s not home reading a book.

If your daughter’s down at the abortion mill again, she’s not at the library studying for the SATs. If your son is in a hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, that’s not good for his future success. All right, I think I can even get some Leftists to admit dying puts a damper on future success.
So we encourage our children and others in the village that it takes — to have a better chance at a good and happy and successful life by being abstinent throughout their childhood. The modern liberal sees our promotion of abstinence as a form of bigotry, our religious fanaticism.

They actually promote promiscuity in the movies, TV shows, in the schools, NARAL a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro-choice organization — holds a fundraiser– I don’t want to be vulgar. I don’t want to say the word, the whole word. They hold a fundraiser called ‘F’ abstinence.

Why would you want to ‘F’ abstinence? OK, I can understand the argument that not every child will be abstinent — but why would you want to destroy childhood abstinence altogether? And the answer is because the modern liberal invariably promotes the behaviors that lead to failure, invariably.

So here’s the difference — we try to help people live a better life by encouraging the behaviors that lead to success.

[…]

The Leftist will seek to rehabilitate the image of the behaviors that are bad. And when their policies invariably as they do, as they have, as they must, lead to greater suffering. When their promotion of childhood promiscuity leads to unwanted pregnancies and poverty for two generations — the out of wedlock born child and the single mother that they’ve promoted to single motherhood.

Who’s to say that’s wrong. But it leads as it has or it must to an epidemic of venereal diseases amongst children. At this point the Democrat screams about his compassion, confiscates our money to create a program designed simply to somewhat mitigate the consequences of the failure that they’ve promoted.

So then they are pro promiscuity — and there was an episode of the Family Guy, a cartoon in which the child Meg tells her mother that she has taken a vow of abstinence until she’s adult. Instead of saying, “That is great, honey, now you won’t get STDs, now you won’t get pregnant; that’s wonderful, if that’s what you want.” Instead of being supportive the mother ridicules her and tries to seduce her into trying to have sex with strangers.

And so when this mentality leads to unwanted pregnancies, the answer from the Leftist is to confiscate our money to open more abortion mills. When it leads as it has, and as it must, like in New York City when one out of four girls are infected with a venereal disease, some with several.

The policy of the Leftist is not to not promote engaging in promiscuous sex. Instead it is to forcibly inject every child with a vaccine that might prevent one of the myriad sexual diseases that the Leftists, by their policies, have made epidemic.

Qu’en pensez-vous?  J’aimerais avoir vos commentaires.

Discours original:

Source de la transcription:  http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/evan-sayets-speech-hating-whats-right-how-the-modern-liberal-winds-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-every-issue/

  1. Aucun commentaire pour l’instant.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Répondre

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :