More Marvels of Moral Equivalency; plus One Honest Man
Wonders never cease, if by wonders we mean spectacles of moral and intellectual vapidity presented by Canadian men named Trudeau.
The Iranian Islamic despotism shot down a passenger jet full of innocent people, dozens of them Canadians of Iranian descent. The Islamic despots are denying that they shot down the jet, although the rest of the world (excepting the usual global apologists for tyranny) has come to a firm agreement on the matter.
Naturally, The New York Times has found a way to imply that this Iranian Islamic despotism’s act of mass murder might somehow actually be the fault of the United States, and specifically of Donald Trump, due to the “escalation” of tensions in the region “caused by” the U.S. military’s assassination of General Soleimani. And in this typical dance of moral cowardice and anti-American subversion masquerading as journalistic objectivity, the NYT gets a big assist from Canada’s dynastic dumpster fire, Justin of the Trudeaus.
During a press conference, in which Trudeau tried his best to feign interest, concern, perhaps even a hint of outrage, at the Islamic despotism’s mindless killing of so many innocent Canadians, members of the attendant media repeatedly asked him whether he believes the Trump administration can be held partly accountable for the lost plane, on the “grounds” that, well, you know, the Iranian Islamic despots probably wouldn’t have been firing missiles around had the U.S. not made them really upset by murdering their “beloved” general and global outreach mastermind.
Here’s the keynote of the NYT article:
In a sign of the tricky diplomatic challenges that could lie ahead, reporters at a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday repeatedly grilled Mr. Trudeau as to whether the United States was partly responsible for what happened, by creating a volatile situation.
“I think that’s one of the many questions that people will be thinking about and trying to find answers to,” Mr. Trudeau said.
Richard Johnston, a professor in the department of political science at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said the circumstances of the plane crash would complicate Canada’s relationship with the United States.
“Many Canadians are suspicious of President Trump and this is not going to help,” Professor Johnston said. “And it could help fan an already simmering backlash against the president.”
Notice, first, that the underlying premise of this line of questioning — not the issue being debated, but the presumed basis of the whole discussion — is that the United States is solely responsible for “creating a volatile situation.” This is apparently beyond doubt. The Iran-stoked violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Iraq has been dropped down the memory hole of convenience.
Now, observe Trudeau’s answer, when “repeatedly” asked regarding this act of murderous violence carried out against innocent Canadian civilians by the Iranian military, using Iranian weapons, on Iranian territory, in a non-defensive missile attack, to place blame for this attack at Trump’s feet: “I think that’s one of the many questions that people will be thinking about and trying to find answers to.”
Which “people” will be thinking about such a question? And why will they be thinking about it? And why is Trudeau citing these alleged people’s thoughts as a substitute for his own direct response to the question, “Is Trump to blame for these deaths?”
This is moral equivalency in its purest form, and as such, it is also a clear revelation of the real motives of moral equivalency, namely a perfect poison cup of equal parts progressive ideology and moral cowardice.
Trudeau, like the “journalists” pursuing this line of questioning, are progressive ideologues who would sell the truth, their mothers, and their nations to the cause of neo-Marxist revolution in a heartbeat, and therefore see vicious mendacity about facts and justice as merely another useful tool in “the struggle,” a method so habitual that it almost asserts itself as a reflex, rather than as a product of conscious calculation. “Hmm, how could be pin this bad outcome on the American right?” is the first question in the progressive’s mind, in all issues, at all times. Whether such a question is appropriate to the situation is never considered. It is appropriate by default, because the question is not motivated by a desire for truth, but rather by a desire to inflict damage upon America in the name of furthering the cause of international socialism. No aim is more fundamental, let alone an aim as antiquated and trivial as “the quest for truth.”
As for the moral cowardice, it is part and parcel of one of the inevitable and universal mechanisms of progressive politics in action: the identifying and crushing of obsolete men, whose corpses comprise the pavement of Progress. No one wishes to be caught espousing a view or judgment that might be deemed out of step with the age, and hence incur the condemnation of the progressive vanguard of the moment. Thus, since Islam is an ideology deemed transitionally useful to progressive anti-capitalism, no prominent Islamic faction or government must ever be judged unequivocally wrong or evil, for fear that this judgment will meet with disapproval from the progressive elite, an outcome all the more likely when the Islamic faction in question is in direct conflict with the United States, in which case it becomes necessary, in keeping with progressivism’s vicious mendacity, to defend those Islamists as the morally righteous side of the dispute, thereby exploiting the conflict as “more evidence” of American injustice. In consequence, even in a case in which a national leader is addressing the violent deaths of over sixty of his own nation’s citizens directly at the hands of an Islamic despotism, he must be careful to avoid saying in unequivocal terms that the Islamic despots are guilty, let alone shamelessly evil, since this (honest) assessment would contradict the current progressive political utility of citing those despots’ dispute with the United States as evidence of American imperialism and intolerance.
After adding the meaningless comment of the Canadian political scientist speculating on how this Iranian act of mass murder might “fan an already simmering backlash” against Donald Trump — a great example of what we may call an argument by non sequitur — the NYT article goes on to review the entire history of touchy relations between Trump and Trudeau, framing it entirely as a defense of Trudeau and critique of Trump (of course). In the midst of this, however, they manage to slip in, apparently in an absentminded fit of cataloguing, this one-sentence statement on the downed airliner by someone who is presumably not a paid operative of the global progressive elite.
“I have no words. Disturbing that the Iranian government may have killed our friends and fellow Canadians,” Payman Parseyan, a leading member of Edmonton’s tight-knit Iranian immigrant community, wrote on Twitter.
That’s a just and suitable response. Shock, sadness, reserved anger — and all of it directed at the actual guilty party, the Iranian government. Too bad the power-players in Canada’s government and the U.S. media lack the sense, the honesty, and the moral courage displayed in that simple statement from Mr. Parseyan, an Iranian immigrant from Edmonton, Alberta.
Not at all surprising or unusual, of course, but too bad.