It was time we talked openly about the radical left in Quebec – we might as well talk about the woke left.
All too often it tries to hide its existence behind general and generous concepts over which it claims a monopoly. She therefore claims to fight for diversity, inclusion, openness and generosity. She believes she is on the side of good.
But we discover its true nature quite quickly as soon as we question the concrete translation of these concepts or simply ask to discuss them.
It is not allowed to question the revolution that it has imposed on the definition of man and woman. It is not permissible to dispute his theory of systemic racism. She is outraged when it is pointed out to her that talk of “Quebec colonialism” is monstrous nonsense.
In fact, we could make a long list of his don’ts.
Her method is simple: as soon as someone defies her, she makes accusations of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, and so on. She can even accuse her opponents of pushing members of certain minorities to commit suicide simply because we ask them to examine certain concepts in more depth. We’ve heard it over the last few days.
The radical left operates through intimidation and in groups.
If someone opposes them or simply insults them, they attack them in groups, of course on social networks, but not exclusively.
Because it dominates the history and social sciences at the university, it has the power to hinder or destroy careers. Over time, this enabled him to grasp the connection to science in the social sciences.
In the media, she tries at all costs to label those she doesn’t like and those she wants to exclude from public debate with a notorious label and, failing this, to condemn them to the role of villains or very evil ones, that they don’t like They are rarely tolerated, for completely understandable reasons.
The radical left is hateful, but believes it is alien to hate. She doesn’t understand her own fanaticism.
And we have to stand up to them.
However, its activists are amazing.
It is enough that they are answered publicly for them to decompose. They even whine when we so much as mention them – they usually talk among themselves, and when their nonsense gets out to the general public, they feel attacked.
They are so used to exercising some kind of moral authority over their contemporaries that they resent the idea of people not following their orders.
And here we can answer the question: “What to do?” in front of the radical left?
The answer is in one word: have courage. Face him. Don’t give in to his shouting. Without this nothing is possible.
Then it should never be given a monopoly on the definition of vocabulary.
When it attacks, you must counterattack. Not only must we reproach him for his excesses or accuse him of going too far, but we must also show that the basis of his argument is flawed.
Today it represents the greatest internal anti-democratic threat to Western societies, as it speaks the language of democracy to better overthrow and ultimately abolish it.
The more it prevails, the more our societies will suffer from its censorship, the more public debate will narrow, and political life will dry up.
