“Base Amoralism” Across the Progressive Left

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

I read this opinion piece by Dinesh D’Souza when he first published it, but something in particular stands out to me, now.

In it, D’Souza quotes from a 1998 interview with progressive megadonor George Soros in which the wealthy investor describes his experience pretending to be Christian under Nazi rule and going out to help confiscate the property of his fellow Jews.  Soros says he felt no guilt at all, because he couldn’t stop their property from being confiscated, so he might as well be on the side of the dictator.  

To Our Readers: We need your support to challenge the progressive mainstream media narrative. Your donation helps us deliver the truth to Rhode Islanders. Please give now.

D’Souza writes:

Soros reflects the type of base amoralism that is more characteristic of fascism and Nazism than of the forces that defeated fascism and Nazism. His anti-fascist pose camouflages deep affinities between Soros and the Nazis, in the same way that antifascist groups today closely resemble the Blackshirts of fascist Italy and the Brownshirts of Nazi Germany.  Soros and the left’s self-styled antifascism is a fraud because there are no fascists they are fighting.  The only fascism that is recognizable in their actions is their own.

“Base amoralism.”  Recall my post from last Monday about a Princeton philosophy professor’s belief that an unborn child whom we know is going to die (because the mother is certain to have an abortion) is “a very different kind of entity” than an unborn child whose mother is likely to bring him or her to term.

This sort of thinking pervades the Left because it makes every moral decision contingent and every issue about power — about being the one with the power to make decisions about who is deserving of life and rights.  That’s why progressives are so prone to excusing the bad behavior of their co-religionists (progressivism being a religion) based on their intentions.

In 2003, I wrote a series of essays after reading Frank Tipler’s Omega Point, and in one, I pointed out that Tipler’s promise of a god of man’s creation at the end of the universe would be prone to washing away the ethical protections of those who opposed such a project.  The same applies to the progressive god of government: Opposition is evidence that one’s intentions are bad, a disqualification for rights.

Click to help us keep the doors open.



  • stuckinRI

    “based on their intentions” . . . if your intentions are good (i.e. you believe what I believe), then ANY MEANS justifies the end (because it is ‘right’ and ‘just’). Like Soros’s older self justifying his younger self’s disgusting behavior.
    If you oppose me and my beliefs . . . your intentions must be bad (because my intentions and beliefs are THE ONLY JUST ONES) and thus you deserve no rights or protections. To hell with freedom of speech for all, freedom of speech should be a right for only those with whom I agree.
    Whether progressives truly believe this or not, their actions more and more demonstrate this way of thinking.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    Soros may have acted reasonably to save his own life, but his “honor” was a fatality.

Quantcast